Biological Difference Archives - Page 4 of 6

Of Boys and Men – Revisitation of a Crisis in Six Parts

by Steven Fearing | Jan 1, 2023 | Biological Difference, Gender Politics, Men's Issues

What is needed is a positive vision of masculinity that is compatible with gender equality. We need a prosocial masculinity for a postfeminist world.

~ Richard Reeves*, Of Boys and Men

We don’t have to be androgynous to be equal.

~ Richard Reeves on Real Time with Bill Maher

How to Read This Post and Subsequent Posts about Of Boys and Men

This post summarizes the main ideas in Of Boys and Men – Why The Modern Male is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What To Do About It (2022) by Richard Reeves*. It is an introduction – Part 1 of a 6-part series with ten posts.

Reeves’s landmark book covers a wide range of issues affecting boys and men with voluminous research citations. After an introduction to Reeves’s work and the crisis faced by boys and men this post gives an overview, or “table of contents,” for the nine subsequent posts in the Summary below. Upcoming posts will include some critique of Reeves’s ideas and additional commentary congruent with prior content from Mating Straight Talk.

*Richard Reeves is a senior fellow in Economics Studies at the Brookings Institution, where he directs the Boys and Men Project. He is also the author of John Stuart Mill: Victorian Firebrand (2007) and Dream Hoarders (2017).

Introduction to Of Boys and Men

There is a political stalemate on issues of sex and gender in America. Both sides have dug into an ideological position that inhibits real change. Views on what it means to be a man in the twenty-first century have hardened along partisan lines. But as Richard Reeves writes in Of Boys and Men:

We can hold two thoughts in our heads at once. We can be passionate about women’s rights and compassionate toward vulnerable boys and men.

Politicians Are Making Matters Worse

Progressives refuse to accept that important gender inequalities can run in both directions. They dismiss legitimate concerns about boys and men and pathologize masculinity.

Conservatives appear more sensitive to the struggles of men and boys, but only as a justification for turning back the clock and restoring traditional gender roles. The populist Right weaponizes male dislocation and offers false promises.

Failure of the Left and the Right

“The failure of both Left and Right to respond to the growing problems of boys and men has created a dangerous vacuum in our political life. In the dynamics of culture-war politics, the more the Right goes to the extreme, the more the Left must go to the other, and vice versa. The Left dismisses biology; the Right [perhaps] leans too heavily on it. The Left sees a war on girls and women; the Right [less ardently or clearly] sees a war on boys and men. The Left pathologizes masculinity; the Right pathologizes feminism.” (p. 129)

Reeves describes both positions of the culture war debate but makes it pretty clear who he thinks is winning the broader narrative in our 6thth decade of feminist thought in America. Thus, the urgency of Of Boys and Men.

Don’t Write This Book!

Colleagues advised Reeves that highlighting the problems of boys and men in the current political climate (as defined and narrated primarily by the progressive and pro-female Left) was a perilous undertaking. Some argued that writing this book would be a distraction from the challenges faced by girls and women. But Reeves knew that was a false choice. He also knew that the conditions for boys and men had worsened, and he could not keep silent. A more non-partisan, thousand-foot view was needed – a perspective informed by good data and analysis of underlying causes, including the biased habits of political positions and the lack of critical thinking.

Contemporary Male Malaise

Reeves pushed forward to write a groundbreaking diagnosis of the contemporary male malaise. Many rapid economic, social, and cultural changes over the recent decades pose new challenges to boys and men – especially those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Black boys and men face the most acute challenges of all.

Prelude in Mating Straight Talk and Important Books

In my last post, I identified recent articles and books that revealed the raw and volatile dynamics of male-female relationships (Why I Am Interested in Heterosexual Sex and Heterosexual Relationships?). In 2020, I listed and described a summary of men’s issues and what is at stake for our common good by naming and acknowledging these conditions. (See Men’s Issues: Rights and Systemic Conditions.)

Reeves follows in the footsteps of Hanna Rosin (The End of Men), Andrew Yarrow (Man Out), Kay Hymowitz (Manning Up), Phillip Zimbardo and Nikita Coulombe (Man Interrupted), and Warren Farrell and John Gray (The Boy Crisis).

Of Boys and Men – A New Framing of the Crisis

Of Boys and Men is another attempt to tell the story of the crisis for boys and men in America. It is one of the most important books of the year, not only because it is a comprehensive look at the male crisis but also because it searches for the roots of that crisis and offers solutions. It provides a much-needed new framing of this crisis through social policy, cultural narrative, and politics.

Summary Of Boys and Men in Upcoming Posts, Parts 2-6

Problems and Conditions of Boys and Men – Part 2.1

1. Boys are struggling in the classroom.
2. Men are struggling in the workplace.
3. Men are also struggling with opioids, suicide, and disproportional Covid deaths.
4. Boys are much more hindered by challenging environments than girls.
5. Black men are severely disadvantaged (on all fronts).
6. Policies and programs designed to promote social mobility often work for women but do not work for men.

Problems and Conditions of Boys and Men – Part 2.2

7. Men are demoralized – there is an aspiration gap.
8. More men are leading haphazard and lonely lives – a crisis of identity.
9. Many men are unmarriageable.
10. “Breadwinning” has been severely damaged.
11. There is professional and academic bias against men.

What the Political Left Gets It Wrong About Boys and Men – Part 3.1

1. The Left tends to pathologize masculinity.

2. The Left sees causes as individual and not structural.

3. The Left is unwilling to acknowledge biological sex differences.

4. The Left believes that gender inequality can only run in one direction – to the disadvantage of women — ignoring the disadvantages to men.

What the Political Right Gets It Wrong about Boys and Men – Part 3.2

1. The Right fuels male grievance.

2. The Right believes (according to Reeves) too much in biological sex differences.

3. The Right see solutions as lying in the past rather than the future.

Solutions Offered by Reeves – Part 4.1

1. “Redshirt” boys for schooling; aligning the timing of male brain development (see Part 5.1).

2. Put more men in front of pre-K, elementary, and middle school classrooms and have more men teach English.

3. Provide significant investment in vocational education and training.

4. Get more men into health, education, administration, and literacy (HEAL) occupations. Give men a 2:1 hiring preference for teaching posts in education and health, like the preference for female tenure-track professors in STEM fields.

5. Increase wages in HEAL occupations, including social work, counseling, and teaching.

Solutions Offered by Reeves – Part 4.2

6. Redesign jobs to be fairer for women: more flexible, part-time, and from home. Modernize career ladders away from “greedy” jobs that reward long and uninterrupted hours.

7. Provide more access to childcare and provision for after-school clubs.

8. Provide six months of paid leave for each child for both mothers and fathers.

9. Reform schools to be fairer for boys. Hire more male teachers and label fewer boys as “disruptive.”

10. Reinvent fatherhood as caregivers and teachers during adolescence. Design more father-friendly jobs.

11. Protect custody rights of unmarried fathers.

12. Consider the father’s ability to pay child support and their non-monetary contributions.

13. Establish an Office of Men’s Health in the Department of Health and Human Services to mirror the existing one for women.

14. Establish a National Coalition for Men and Boys in Education.

Biological Differences Between the Sexes: Part 5.1 (Additional detail from Reeves)

• Caveats to Biological Difference
• Brain Development
• Testosterone

Biological Differences Between the Sexes: Part 5.2 (Additional detail from Reeves)

• Aggression
• Risk
• Sex Drive and Motivation

Pay Gap, STEM Careers and Gender Equality Paradox – Part 6 (Additional detail from Reeves)

• Female Earnings and Progress in STEM
• The Paradox in Gender-equal Countries
• Different Work and Different Hours
• The Pay Gap Is a Parenting Gap

Signature Quotes from the Book

• “It is a bad idea to send a cultural signal to half of the population that there may be something intrinsically wrong with them.” (p. 108)

• “Masculinity is not a pathology; it is quite literally a fact of life.” (p. 108)

• “For those on the political left, victim-blaming is permitted when it comes to men.” (p. 109)

• “Many conservatives deny the environmental science of climate change. But many progressives deny the neurosciences of sex differences.” (p. 111)

• “The real debate is not whether biology matters, but how much it does, and when it does.” (p. 87)

• “This is the most dangerous message of all: men are naturally different than women, but only in ways that are bad.” P. 112

• “Our estimates imply that the aversion to having the wife earn more than the husband explains 29% of the decline of marriage rate over the last thirty years.” (Marianne Bertrand, p. 37)

• “The idea of the provider is a major element in the construction of a masculine identity. It is a moral as well as an economic category.” (David Morgan, p. 34)

• “In sum, women mate horizontally and up (socioeconomically), and men mate horizontally and down.” (Scott Galloway)

• “In recent years, most of the scientists identifying natural differences have, if anything, tended to stress the superiority of women.” (p. 111)

• “The dominant narrative of gender equality is framed almost exclusively in terms of the disadvantages of girls and women.” (p. 72)

• “Given the huge progress made by women in recent decades and the significant challenges now faced by many boys and men, it makes no sense to treat gender inequality as a one-way street.” (p. 115)

• “Rather than looking in the rear-view mirror, we need to establish a new basis for fatherhood, one that embraces the huge progress we have made toward gender equality.” (p. 38)

• “Many people on the political Left seem to fear that even acknowledging the problems of boys and men will somehow weaken efforts for women and girls. This is entirely false as a matter of practice and creates a dangerous political dynamic.” (p. 115)

• “By far the biggest difference is not how female and male brains develop but when.” (p.11)

• “There is certainly very little evidence that women are paid less than men for doing the same work in the same way.” (p.26) Women are paid less because they do different work, or work differently, or both.” (p. 27)

• “But as long as men continue to be willing to put in long and often unpredictable hours, the prospects for structural reform [in career ladders] remain dim.” (p. 181) And men will continue to put in long and unpredictable hours because the prize for that is sexual access to women. This fact is the “undiscussable” elephant in the room. (SF)

• “The fact that the highest rungs [of the economic ladder] have male feet all over them is scant comfort for the men at the bottom.” ~ The Economist (p. xi)

• “Conservatives worried about boys and men need to be concerned about economic inequality. But liberals worried about inequality must pay more attention to boys and men.” (p. 72)

• “One study showed that a Black man without a criminal record is less likely to be hired than a similarly qualified white man with a criminal record.” (p. 55)

• “There is simply no way to reduce economic inequality without improving the fortunes of less advantaged boys and men.” (p. 61)

• “The rather boring truth is that masculine traits are more useful in some contexts and feminine ones in others, and neither set in intrinsically better than the other.” (p. 87)

• “It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.” (Olga Khazan, p. 98)

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 Am I Interested in Heterosexual Sex and Heterosexual Relationships?

by Steven Fearing | Aug 22, 2022 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality

“All human life stems from the reality of, and difference between, men and women.”

~ Nina Power, What Do Men Want?, 2022

In “How Should Feminists Have Sex Now?,” a recent article in the Atlantic magazine, it struck me that this question, in one form or another, is at the forefront of feminist inquiry for a reason. The question about how heterosexual men and women can relate to one another in 2022 has never been more pressing (especially after the Roe decision and “me-too”). And the accumulation of 50+ years of feminism (1st to 5th wave) has yet to resolve or settle the dilemma of how to integrate power equity and sexual desire in a partnership or how to navigate the shared terrain of social policy and politics. This lack of integration is more acute than ever. That is why I am interested in heterosexual sex and heterosexual relationships.

Infrastructure of Heterosexual Relationships

In seeking integration, first we must acknowledge our “prime directive.” Heterosexual sex and reproduction are the ancient forces that operate across all recorded time — within all non-human species and for all humans, regardless of geography, nation-state, and cultural system. Sexual selection, reproduction, and the survival of children remain the essential pillars of human societies — the primary, often hidden infrastructure for all issues of heterosexual relating.

Clarion Calls: Recent Writings on Male-Female Dynamics

Book reviews recently appearing in the Atlantic (Right to Sex, Tomorrow Sex Can Be Good Again, Rethinking Sex, Bad Sex, and What Do Men Want?* reveal that the current dynamics of male-female relationships are raw and volatile. The clarion calls of cultural critique are not about how we have heterosexual sex (although there is some relevance); they are about how our world is ordered between men and women. They dare to ponder who has the (erotic) allure of power, rank, dominance, and physical beauty — and how those ingredients of mate value are used to negotiate empowerment and satisfaction for both men and women.

Revisiting Our Natures – Not Always a Happy House

Leaning into a truth that revisits and reacquaints itself with our “nature,” these books address the complexities of whom we desire and why — whom women choose and the way men pursue them. They tentatively go beyond the trope of social constructivist feminist theory and its singular focus on “nurture.” How do feminist political sensibilities “live” within the psychological and physiological imperatives of sexual desire? It is not always a happy household.

Frank Recognition of Sex Differences is Needed**

Mostly missing (still), in the current crop of feminist revisionist thinking, is a frank recognition of the evolved differences between men and women – physiological, hormonal, sexual, psychological, neurological, and behavioral. Feminism has tended to deny or downplay those differences for supposed gains of agency and equity. Some gains have been made, but the cost to male-female heterosexual relationships has been high. The battle continues, as these books (and hundreds of essays and articles) describe, because our sex differences are not fully acknowledged, understood, or embraced.

The political history of the feminist struggle reveals, among everything else, the absolute truth of male-female difference. As Sophie Gilbert says in “How Should Feminists Have Sex Now?”:

What happened to sex in the 21st century was informed by long-standing failures to reconcile all of the forces – physiological, psychological, historical, cultural, evolutionary — that sex embodies.

Search for the Meaningful Pair-bond

This failure to reconcile all the forces is why I study mate selection science and the evolved behavioral differences between the sexes. That is why I examine, primarily from a psychological context, the current search for love, intimacy, romance, pair-bonding, and sexual pleasure preoccupying a large portion of our population. These are the essential ingredients of sexual selection and, thus, all human life. It has been the signature dynamic in my life, made most acute by unrequited efforts. Facing the unforgiving reality of mate choice was the rudest awakening of my adulthood.

Many of You Do Not Feel the Relevance

Yes, those of you who are long married, partnered, gay, or asexual (in practice) do not see and feel the relevance of this inquiry. You are mostly lucky to be out of the mating game. But this conversation between men and women is ubiquitous and ancient. It is our evolutionary heritage. As Jordan Peterson tells us in 12 Rules For Life, mating behavior, in the context of dominance hierarchies, is older than the dinosaurs. Sexual selection is a powerful force. It constructs human culture – it even trumps natural selection.

Furthermore, I must pose this question to those out of the heterosexual mating game: Do you really think you are immune to the “toxic soup” of social and political conditions caused by disaffected and angry (mostly White) men? Their anger is often related (even if not articulated) to their failures in the (sometimes brutal) ecosystem of mate selection.

The Perennial Mating Dance Continues

Alas, the dance of heterosexual mating behavior continues unabated – it “soaks” and permeates nearly all corners of our interpersonal world and media environments. Right now, it rests on “unfertile” ground – a dry and depleted soil not given to grow empathy and understanding. Tribal politics make it hard to cultivate connections. Authentic and performative expressions of identity and sexual fluidity (however necessary) complicate the search for a shared truth.

How Feminists Should Have Sex Now

In the final analysis, it is heterosexual relationships that populate the planet. We must figure out how to do them with mutual respect and harmony. That’s one prescription for how feminists should have sex now.

Urgent and Robust Narratives

Here is a sampling of recent writings that illustrate the urgent, robust nature of the male-female conversation:

Articles

“How Should Feminists Have Sex Now?” Sophie Gilbert, Atlantic, (August 14, 2022).
“How Toxic is Masculinity?” Zoe Heller, Atlantic, (August 2022).
“Desire in Our Times: A Conversation with Amia Srinivasan,” Nawal Arjini, The Nation, (2021).
“Where is Our Paradise of Guilt-Free Sex?” Helen Lewis, Atlantic, (Oct. 2021).
“We’re Shaped by Our Sexual Desires. Can We Shape Them?, Alexandra Schwartz, New Yorker, (Sept. 2021).

*Books

What Do Men Want? Masculinity and Its Discontents, Nina Power, 2022.

Daddy Issues. Love and Hate In the Time of Patriarchy, Katherine Angel, 2022.

Bad Sex – Truth, Pleasure, and An Unfinished Revolution, Nona Willis Aronowitz, 2022.

Rethinking Sex. A Provocation, Christine Emba, 2022.

Sexual Revolution: Modern Fascism and the Feminist Fightback, Laurie Penny, 2022.

A History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice, Ivan Jablonka, 2022.

The Right To Sex. Feminism In the Twenty-first Century, Amia Srinivasan, 2021.

Tomorrow, Sex Will Be Good Again. Women and Desire in the Age of Consent, Katherine Angel, 2021.

I Hate Men, book and essay, Pauline Harmange, 2020.

Important Older Books

The End of Men, Hanna Rosin, 2010.

Sexual Fluidity. Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, Lisa Diamond, 2008.

Look Both Ways. Bisexual Politics, Jennifer Bumgardner, 2007.

**Acknowledging Similarity

There are, of course, similarities between men and women. (I have underscored this “caveat” many times.) All human beings live within a hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, belonging, love, esteem, and self-actualization. Finding common ground related to our shared needs and values is necessary for healing. Nothing said here disputes that. A “technology” of conflict resolution and interpersonal communication skills must be used to find this common ground. But this technology must also be used to confront our differences. We must do both. In the world of cis-gendered heterosexual men and women, it is our denied differences that are most problematic. Please see Political Divide – Part 6: Moral Communication – The Way Forward for a description of what this “technology” looks and sounds like.

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

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

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

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

~ Jennifer Baumgardner

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

What Can Be Done to Improve Heterosexual Partnerships

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

Female Sexuality is Different from Male Sexuality

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

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

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

What is Female Sexual Fluidity?

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

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

Female Fluidity is Growing

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

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

Liberal Generation Zs – An Increasingly Fluid Population

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

Bisexual women reveal preference instead of orientation.

Female Sexual Fluidity Reveals the Power of Context

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

Formulations of Female Context

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

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

1. Context of emotional connection

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

Women Have More Interest in the Character Traits of Connection

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

2. Context of being empowered and politically progressive

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

“Gay Expectations” – Contexts 1 and 2 Combined

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

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

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

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

4. Context of belonging and community

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

Belonging Is Intoxicating

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

Dissension Within the Fluid Community

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

“Bi For Now”

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

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

5. Context of men as undesirable and a liability

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

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

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

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

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

7. Context of female competing intentions for erotic intimacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconscious Double-binds

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

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

8. Context of supply and demand

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism Must Reconcile Complexities of Female Sexual Fluidity and Response

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

Male Sexuality Should Not Be Uniformly Criticized

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

The Drift Away from Men

Women are creating more distance from men, not less.

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

The Future of Male-Female Relationships

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

Why does this matter?

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

Cultural Forces Matter Going Forward

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

Understanding Fluidity and Context Can Make Men Better Lovers

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

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

Note

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

Appendix

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

First Principle: Acknowledge Male-Female Differences

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

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

Assumptions of Mating Straight Talk

General differences between men and women in sexual psychology and response

The twenty-two (22) domains of male-female difference. Domain #13 is related to the influence of context, and domain #15 is about sexual orientation, preference, and response variability. These domains will receive special attention in coming posts. But nearly all domains have an impact on sexual fluidity.

Denial of Sex Differences is Problematic

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

We Are Uniquely The Same

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

Universal Emotions — Sex-Specific Causes

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

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

Assumptions of Mating Straight Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vive la Différence

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

General Differences between Men and Women in Sexual Psychology and Response

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

Women are less likely to have alignment (“concordance”) between their genital response and subjective arousal; this causes confusion and misunderstanding for women and their male partners. Men have dramatically more concordance between their genital response and subjective arousal.

All sex happens in context. Women are more context-sensitive than men, and all external circumstances of everyday life influence the context surrounding a woman’s arousal, desire, and orgasm.

Women’s sexual functioning is more influenced by their internal brain state — how they think and feel about sex. Judgment, shame, stress, mood, trust, body image, and past trauma influence a woman’s sexual well-being.

Men and women have significantly different hormones and some variations in brain structure. Differences caused by the amount of testosterone cannot be overstated.

Women and men differ significantly in visual orientation for physical attraction and production of sexual thoughts.

Men and women have different preferences and priorities for the traits desired in a mate (with agreement about kindness, stability, humor, and care of children).

Human sexual response consists of a “dual control” system with an excitation mechanism (“accelerator”) and an inhibition mechanism (“brake”). Men are accelerator-dominant, and women are brake-dominant.

Related to differences between the sexual “accelerator” and “brake,” men operate primarily from “spontaneous desire” triggers, and women operate primarily from “response desire” triggers.

Men sell (primarily), and women buy (most often) in the mating economy; this is the predominant evolutionary dynamic. The psychology of the sexual initiator and pursuer is vastly different from that of the one pursued and the one who chooses among her pursuers.

The psychology of male intra-sexual competition differs from that of female intersexual selection (preferential mate choice.) Also, women’s intra-sexual competition (competing against each other) for male attention is a different behavioral phenomenon than male-on-male competition.

And last but not least:

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

Terms of Engagement – Prelude to Understanding Female Sexual Fluidity

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

Sexual Identity

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

Same-Sex and Other-Sex Orientation

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

Domains of Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Presentation, and Biological Sex

by Steven Fearing | Jul 13, 2021 | Biological Difference, Gender Politics, Sexuality, Uncategorized

“Everyone under 25 thinks they are queer.”

~ The Bisexual (Hulu)

Mating Straight Talk (MST) attempts to scientifically demonstrate the evolved behavioral sex differences between men and women and explain human mate selection; it does so because heterosexual (behaviorally) men and women produce human children and the race of homo sapiens on earth.

MST affirms “straight” male and female sexuality as drivers of procreation and protection of offspring but recognizes outliers of sexual orientation that must be explained or incorporated into the understanding of the forces that propel sexual reproduction. We cannot fully understand “straight” sexuality without considering the proportion, “causes,” and role that homosexuality (and all apparent variations of sexual orientation along a continuum) may play in the evolution of human species — or at least the role of sexual orientation variations in contemporary dating and mating.

Starting with a Basic Foundation of Sexual Orientation

In the coming months, I will write about the complex and sometimes confusing world of sexual orientation, gender identity, identity presentation, and the biology of sex. I will start by addressing a “basic foundation”: sexual orientation among cisgender individuals – (people who identify with the biological sex that they were assigned at birth).

Cisgender Is Subjective

While cisgender individuals are the statistical norm (mode), even “cisgender” (as a category of gender identity) has a psychological component. Identity is always subjective and personal. For example, a person can have an xx chromosomal/genetic makeup, female external genitalia, female internal reproductive organs, be considered a girl by the hospital, midwife, and parents, yet still “choose” to identify as a man. However, being cisgender theoretically says nothing about sexual orientation — nothing about who that person desires and wants to have sex with (or why). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender presentation often get conflated and confused in the immense vocabulary of “identity” parlance. Later, I will introduce the variations of gendered identity beyond cisgender and biological sex (i.e., “male” and “female.”)

But to simplify, let’s begin with sexual orientation among cisgender identified individuals and consider the following “foundational” spectrum:

Orientation Spectrum

Homosexuality (gay/lesbian): (Near) exclusive sexual attraction to, or sexual activity with, the same sex.

Bisexuality: Some proportion of attraction to both the opposite sex and the same sex (roughly within a 30-70% split one way or another as a conceptual null hypothesis) exhibited by internal experience, desire, and behavior depending upon the context and a host of factors.

“Mostly straight” women: I will also call them “hetero-flexible.” These are self-identified heterosexual women who express an “occasional” or infrequent feeling of desire for another women or behavior of sexual attraction to another woman. Along with outright bisexuality, this orientation designation draws from a broad spectrum of research on women’s sexual fluidity that is dramatically on the increase among Gen Y.1 (25-29 years old) and Gen Z (up to 24 years of age).

“Mostly straight” men: Based on the book and research by Rich Savin-Williams at Cornell, these are supposedly self-identified heterosexual men who occasionally have a desire for and sexual behavior with other men. For me, this is the most interesting (and perhaps controversial) category to investigate on the sexual orientation spectrum. What does evolutionary psychology have to say about these men?

Heterosexual men and women: Men and women who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex. They are the most common orientation and the subject of most research on sexual selection in evolutionary psychology.

Where do asexuals, “pansexuals,” and “demi-sexuals” fit along the above spectrum? Are they an actual orientation? All of this will be explored in future posts.

Sources of Information

These are broad and complex topics studied and researched primarily within the field of “gender studies.” I will draw upon just a fraction of the available literature, including:

Books:

Lisa Diamond’s classic Sexual Fluidity, Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (2008).
Rich Savin-Williams’ ground-breaking book, Mostly Straight, Sexual Fluidity Among Men (2017).
Jennifer Baumgardner’s Look Both Ways — Bisexual Politics (2007).

Popular – Lay Critiques:

“The Science of Gender (Time Magazine, Special Edition, 2020).
“The Gender Revolution” (National Geographic, Special Edition, Jan. 2017).
Writings and resources from the website Them and writings in the categories of relationship and sexuality appearing in Medium.

Last But Not Least — from Evolutionary Psychology:

Numerous critiques, studies, and articles.

Commentary in Future Posts – Confusion and Inquiry

Here are some of the issues that I will be addressing in the coming months:

What Are the Effects of Increasing Female Sexual Fluidity on Heterosexual Relationships?

The “new” bisexuality and hetero-flexibility of women may significantly influence the heterosexual mating marketplace – a marketplace that already favors the erotic power of women to choose and the struggles of men to be chosen. We would be well served to understand the cultural forces that seem to have increased female sexual fluidity.

Is there a drift away from men as sexual partners and less understanding and respect for male heterosexuality? This “drift away” from men appears to be an exercise in preference, not orientation.

What are the problems of heterosexual men in attempting to partner with these women? The bisexual behavior of women may be uncovering an inherent female bisexual orientation, or it could also be an expression of a disenchantment with men and masculinity in general.

What Are the Sociological Causes of Increased Declarations of “Queer” Identity?

Is the increased number of “queer-identified” (used as a convenient short-cut, catch-all term) young Americans due to new permission to “come out,” or is there some deeper nature-nurture co-evolution expressing itself (albeit with radically accelerated speed)?

How much of “queer identity” is a cultural meme related to the need to be unique and “cool” yet also (paradoxically) driven by a need to belong and relieve anxiety?

How much of this cultural phenomenon (or even a fast-moving nurture-nurture co-evolutionary effect) is a function of the digital and virtual world where any identity can be tested and tried with relative anonymity? (See episodes of Black Mirror.)

How much of “queer identity” reflects a lens of activism projected through the entertainment media: the view of the outlier and artist who is disproportionately “queer,” providing commentary on all these issues through film, TV, and theatre? Are we being “hammered” by political correctness and snowflake psychology to put a flashing (and exaggerated) neon light on the need for change? Does this powerful voice of change necessarily represent a proportional expression of the actual numbers of people within the sexual orientation and gender identity communities across the globe?

Conflating of Terms Across Domains of Function

There is a mixture and conflating of orientation, gender identity, biological sex, and gender presentation in the umbrella category of LGBTQ2SIA+.

The LGBTQ2SIA+ acronym is a political designation that identifies anyone who does not identify with the biological sex “assigned to them” at birth or anyone who is not heterosexual. Therefore, this categorical umbrella has myriad designations of biology and subjective psychological states which overlap and involve redundancy with inadequate definitions and distinctions between them. (This is one of the reasons why there is much internal strife between political advocacy groups representing these designations.)

Conflating of Biological Sex and Gender Identity in Arguments

In the political advocacy writings about (and from) these groups, there is often a conflating of biological sex and gender identity in their arguments. On the one hand, the difference between biological sex and gender identity is described. Then several paragraphs later, gender identity will be used to imply biological sex and vice versa without noting that a blurring of definitions has occurred.

What About Trans-sexuality and Intersex?

The issues, needs, and stories of transsexuals are compelling and deserve our full attention and support. Unpacking the permutations of gender identities and expressions of sexual orientation among transsexuals (and their partners) is one of the most unexplored areas of sexual, psychological research. One question jumps out in this sphere: what is the biological basis (genetic, hormonal, neural) for gender dysphoria?

There are differences of opinion about the nature and amount of people who do not present as one biological sex or the other, i.e., as men or women. These people are called intersex — an umbrella term for several biological and physiological conditions. Intersex folks are rare, but their political advocacy is not.

Do We Still Have Biological Men and Women?

What we are perhaps left with, inside the advocacy of these various groups, is the idea that a biological “man” and “woman” may no longer make sense. It is asserted (in some circles) that not only is gender “non-binary” (with literally millions of possibilities of proclaimed identification) but that biological sex is also non-binary (which is NOT to say it is a continuum). And yet, we need sperm and ovum (unfertilized female gamete) to make the human race on planet earth.

Political Battles and Framing

One might notice that much of the discussion about gender identity, orientation, etc., is framed as a political battle of us vs. them, oppressed vs. oppressor, victim vs. perpetrator. This framing is not incorrect per se; it just obfuscates the knowledge within the biological and psychological sciences. It heightens the influence of the social and emotional context in the field of human sexuality (especially female sexuality) and reproduction. The history and certitude of human reproduction and sexual selection are blurred under the weight of group politics and individual expressions for belonging, recognition, and justice.

Why Swim in These Waters?

An attempt to systematically unpack the confusing and ever-evolving narratives of sexual orientation and gender identity is probably a fool’s errand. Why address issues of sexual orientation in the posts of MST (leaving aside, for now, the multitudinous universe of gender identity variations)? From the About page on this site, one of the purposes of MST is “to explore and bring clarity to issues of gender politics and the tensions between men and women related to roles, power, and sexual strategies with a focus on honesty, mutual understanding, and complementarity.” The upcoming posts are “on purpose.”

Evolutionary Psychology Joins the Conversation

Conversations about orientation and identity are ubiquitous in current politics, popular psychology, social media, and entertainment. They are staring us in the face. Evolutionary psychology and mate selection science must be in the mix with critique and information and thus utilize this cultural moment to expand our knowledge of what it means to be a sexual human being.

Outliers Reveal More About Evolved Sex Differences?

Statistical outliers of orientation may help elucidate the nature of male and female sexuality and the evolved behavior differences between “the sexes.” The broader conversation about the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identity may increase our understanding of the co-evolutionary synergy of biology and culture. Grasping the contours of sexuality in 2021 seems to require exploring the continuum of “queer” identities; it calls for an inquiry about the biology, psychology, and cultural politics of desire and sexual relating. Certainly, it provokes curiosity about what it means to be human.

Beyond Nature and Nurture

Relatedly, evolutionary psychology (EP) must continue to articulate insights beyond the “nature vs. nurture” debate and explain what is meant by “dual inheritance” or “structured prior-to-experience.” Also, EP must recognize the possibilities of human potential that come from “naming” (if not discovering) new forms of identity.

The Tenets of Sexual Selection Do Not Change

Alas, perhaps it is not necessary to solve the riddle of homosexuality, bisexuality, and “mostly straight” sexuality (and other variations of orientation) as it relates to evolution and sexual reproduction. (More of the fool’s errand? The jury is still out.) The basic tenets of mate choice (sexual selection) for reproduction do not change. Procreation between biological men and women (sperm and ovum) seems to operate unimpeded on its own terms.

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

Women’s Preferences for Male Facial Masculinity

by Steven Fearing | Jun 20, 2021 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Sexuality

“The face is more honest than the mouth will ever be.”

~ Daphne Orebaugh

In a prior post (Want An equal Marriage? Then Date As Equals), I described the “trade-off problem” (coined by evolutionary psychologists) that women have in choosing between male alpha traits of dominance and status and male beta traits of loyalty and kindness. Recent research reveals this trade-off phenomenon is operative when a woman rates a man’s attractiveness as a function of his facial masculinity. Do women who are attracted to men prefer a macho, masculine appearance? Or is a gentler, more feminine face the ideal?

Take-away – High-level

Along a continuum of digitally produced hyper-feminine to hyper-masculine faces, women preferred the “moderately” masculine face. Women’s preference for moderately masculine faces comports directly with the overall female mating strategy that attempts to find the “sweet spot” of an alpha-dominant man (with resources, prestige, and hierarchical power) and a “beta” man who will be trustworthy and invest in her children. This trade-off problem is solved by finding a compromise for facial masculinity – identifying a masculine face rated above the mean but not so masculine as to be perceived as untrustworthy. A preference for “moderately” masculine faces demonstrates the combination of a woman’s long-term and short mating strategy and her competing intentions for selecting traits in an ideal mate.

Order of Facial Preference (Summary)

After moderately masculine faces, the order of preference for male faces was “intermediate” (balanced masculine and feminine) faces, followed by extremely masculine and moderately feminine faces. Extremely feminine (male) faces were the least attractive to heterosexual women.

Masculine Traits in the Animal Kingdom

In the rest of the animal kingdom, males with exaggerated masculine traits are favored. For example, the showy plumage of a bird of paradise or the puffed-up chest of a silver-back gorilla makes these animals luckier in love. This is likely because there is a link between these macho traits and health and vigor. A preference for masculine traits is a preference for a male who will make a good biological father.

Tough Guys and Sensitive Types

In our species, perhaps unsurprisingly, the story is more complicated. Some women prefer “tough guys,” and others prefer more sensitive types. Why? In some circumstances, masculine qualities are more valuable. In others, a more feminine partner might be the better choice.

Dimorphism and the Masculine Human Face

Men’s facial masculinity expresses the degree of dimorphism or physical differences between the sexes in humans. A masculine face has narrower eyes and thinner lips; a broader mandible (jawbone), chin, forehead, and (wider) nose; larger cheekbones, a long lower face height below the nasal region, a more protruded and robust brow ridge, straighter eyebrows, facial hair, and darker complexion. The heavy lower face that women favor in men is a visible record of the surge in testosterone and other male sex hormones that turn small boys into athletic men.

Male Facial Hair and Attractiveness

A paper published in January 2020 found that facial masculinity was positively correlated with attractiveness, and beards significantly increased attractiveness in both short-term and long-term scenarios. The effect is demonstrated by the fact that full-bearded feminine (male) faces (otherwise least attractive) were rated as more attractive than clean-shaven moderately masculine faces (otherwise, the most attractive).

“Moderate” Man Pictured Above

The signature image for this post demonstrates (IMO) a moderately masculine face. This man has narrow eyes, a wide jaw bone, prominent cheekbones, a fairly robust brow ridge, facial hair, and a darker complexion. He does not have a broad nose or significant face height below the nasal region. His facial symmetry (see Appendix) is nearly perfect, generating overall attractiveness (and perhaps a touch of femininity). His expression is determined, if not slightly menacing, adding an artifact to his overall masculinity.

What is a Feminine Face?

Given the dimorphism between the sexes, it is necessary and instructive to consider the “feminine face” to access levels of facial masculinity. Social psychologist Michael Cunningham at the University of Louisville found dimensions and proportions of the ideal female face: large eyes, small chin and nose, high cheekbones, and narrow cheeks. These traits are signs that a woman has reached puberty. The tiny jaw is essentially a monument to estrogen and obliquely to fertility – signaling the increased odds that she could get pregnant. High eyebrows, dilated pupils, and broad smile signal excitement and sociability. Cunningham also found that men are looking for lips that have “fullness, redness, and warmth.”

Hyperfeminine Face

When researcher David Perrett exaggerated the ways in which the prettiest female composite differed from the average composite, the resulting face was judged more attractive. “It turned out that the way an attractive female face differs from an average one is related to femininity,” say Perrett. “For example, the female eyebrows are more arched than males and exaggerating the difference from average increases femininity.” Perrett created a “hyperfeminine” face in his studies by slightly changing the face to have larger eyes, a smaller nose, plumper lips, a narrow jaw, and a smaller chin. (See “Averageness and Exceptionality” in Appendix.)

The hyperfeminine face is considered attractive (if not beautiful) by both men and women. The hypermasculine face is considered less attractive than average, especially by women.

Healthy Men Can Afford High Levels of Testosterone

Facial masculinity is a secondary sexual trait caused by sex-specific ratios of androgens (testosterone) and estrogens, affecting morphology (physical form and structure) and behavior. It is hypothesized that women should find facial masculinity attractive in potential mates because masculinity may act as an honest signal for male health. Only men with above-average health in adolescence can “afford” to produce high levels of testosterone that masculinizes the face. Facial masculinity is positively associated with some aspects of men’s health and disease resistance.

Facial Masculinity May Signal Competitive Ability

Facial masculinity may signal competitive ability to other men and the ability to provide protection and resources. It may also provide relevant information to potential mates and same-sex rivals regarding reproductive maturity, underlying health, formidability, and social status. More masculine-looking men tend to have more muscular physiques and greater physical strength, health, and competitive ability.

Facial Masculinity is Associated with Behavioral Dominance

Facial masculinity is associated with behavioral dominance, an open sociosexual orientation (level of “sapiosexuality”*), and higher social rank in same-sex dominance hierarchies. It has been reported that square-jawed men start having sex earlier than their peers and attain higher ranks in the military.

Trade-off: Good Health vs. Good Parent

Masculine facial traits increase both perceived dominance and decreased quality as a parent. High levels of testosterone have been linked to undesirable social traits such as aggression and decreased parental investment. Again, women may face a trade-off between choosing a less masculine but more agreeable (and investing) long-term partner versus choosing a man whose masculine appearance indicates good health — but who may have less socially desirable traits. Thus, variation in preference for masculine men may reflect choices for more prosocial partners and nurturing fathers over possible indirect (genetic) and direct benefits associated with masculine facial traits.

“Masculine” Men and Likelihood of Sexual Infidelity

Masculine-looking men are perceived to be less warm, kind, and less paternally investing. Further, masculine men state higher preferences for short-term mating than for long-term relationships. They engage in more short-term relationships than their less masculine peers, and women accurately assign the likelihood of sexual infidelity for the masculine facial shape in static photographs. Women find less masculine faces more attractive for a long-term relationship, perhaps because macho men are generally less committed.

Women Prefer More Masculine Men for Short-term Flings

Illustrating collusion or synergy related to a masculine man’s short-term mating preference, the results of 15 years of research consistently show that women find above-average masculine faces to be sexiest and most attractive for a casual sexual encounter.

Study Rated Degrees of Facial Masculinity

As reported in Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2017), Iris Holzleitner (Institute of Neuroscience & Psychology in Glasgow) published a comprehensive study of how women differ in their preferences for male facial masculinity. Holzleitner recruited 563 women who rated the attractiveness of a set of male faces that had been manipulated to appear more feminine or more masculine. Masculine faces were altered to have a more robust jaw, narrower eyes and lips, and a wider nose. In many research studies, volunteers are only asked to compare one feminized face with one masculinized face; in Holzleitner’s study, volunteers individually rated faces of varying degrees of masculinity.

Example of Continuum of Facial Masculinity

Degrees of facial masculinity are depicted below as an illustrative example. The “average” face is from a research data set; the “less masculine” and “more masculine” faces are alterations from the “average” made by web-master and photographer Tom Carroll, especially for this post. Changes to the jawline, cheeks, chin, lips, eyes, and eyebrows exaggerate the difference between a “feminized” male face and a strong (perhaps “hyper”) masculine face; Holzleitner’s computer-generated facial changes were more subtle, systemized, and “mathematical” along a continuum. The average face depicted here is roughly equivalent to a “moderately” masculine face.

Women Preferred the “Moderately Masculine”

Holzleitner found that women most preferred male faces that were moderately masculine. Very masculine or feminine faces were less appealing. However, the degree of masculinity a woman preferred in a man’s face depended somewhat on her own characteristics.

Sexual Orientation-Fluidity Effect

Not surprisingly, women who had some attraction to women tended to rate feminine male faces more attractive. Whereas women who were exclusively attracted to men had a stronger preference for more masculine faces. “The more women were exclusively sexually attracted to men, the more attractive they found highly masculine faces,” reported Holzleitner.

Recent Research on Sexual Fluidity Effect

Variations in the sexual orientation (degree of fluidity or “hetero-flexibility”) of self-identified heterosexual women influence preferences for male facial masculinity, according to recent research by Carlotta Batres (2020) published in the International Journal of Sexual Health. Batres is a professor and director of The Preferences Lab** at Franklin & Marshall College.

Batres and colleagues asked 27,611 heterosexual women to report their level of sexual attraction to women, level of sexual attraction to men, hormonal contraceptive use, relationship status, attitude toward casual sex, and self-assessed attractiveness. The participants were then shown pairs of male faces and instructed to select which face from each pair they considered to be the most attractive.

Sixty-two Percent of Heterosexual Women Reported Some Attraction to Women!

Even though all the women identified as heterosexual, 62.6% reported some level of sexual attraction to other women. This finding was quite significant (if not surprising) by itself. But more pertinent to the study was the finding that attraction to women influenced assessments of male attractiveness.

“Heterosexual” Women Who Are Attracted to Women Prefer Less Masculine Faces

Batres found the same effect as did Holzleitner. Women with higher levels of attraction to other women were more likely to view less masculine-looking male faces as more attractive.

Attractive Women Did Not Prefer Feminine Faces

Women also differed in their preferences according to their self-rated attractiveness. Women who thought they were high in attractiveness didn’t find feminine male faces very attractive at all, but less attractive women rated them moderately appealing. Both self-rated attractive and self-rated unattractive women agreed that moderately masculine men were the most appealing and that very masculine men were slightly less so (as in “order of preference above”).

More Attractive Women Want More Masculine Faces

Stated another way, more attractive women showed less tolerance for lower levels of masculinity than did less attractive women. The more physically attractive the woman (by self-rating), the stronger preference for higher levels of masculinity. More attractive women also showed greater discrimination than less attractive women in their preference for masculine faces.

Male-Female Polarity Phenomenon

Greater discrimination or more “choosiness” is a predictable behavior of more attractive women. As uncovered in Batres’ research, this result is a phenomenon of male-female polarity: beautiful women want and get more masculine men (men with masculine facial features, taller, and with more defined v-shaped torsos). This polarity seems biologically unconscious as well as predicted by “sorting” in the mating economy. There is a “mate value” agreement: beautiful women have a high mate value and taller, masculine men generally have higher mate value than shorter and less physically masculine men.

Beautiful Women Can “Afford” More Masculine Men

Attractive women have more immunity from the costs of disloyalty often imposed by more masculine men. Masculine men are less likely to abandon very beautiful women. The costs are higher for less attractive women – those women calculate the risk and often “trade” for more “beta” character traits in their choice of a long-term partner.

Women Prefer Masculine Faces in Better Economic Conditions

According to a study appearing in scientific reports (2019), women’s preference for facial masculinity is strongest under favorable ecological conditions. Improved economic conditions reduce the need for parental investment from men. Women may prefer a less masculine and more loyal mate under more tenuous economic conditions – conditions for which assured parental investment is most important.

Female Short-term Mating Increases in Favorable Economic Conditions

Women’s preferences for masculine faces, bodies, voices, and odors are stronger when considering short-term rather than long-term mates. Economically favorable conditions and reduced need for parental investment may cause women to have more interest in short-term mates and thus more masculine men, referred to as higher “sapiosexuality.” Under favorable economic conditions, women reported greater willingness to engage in less romantically committed relationships and were more likely to select masculine faces as most sexually attractive.

Holzleitner proposed that women in prosperous countries were more sexually liberated and economically secure, thus freer to make costly mate choices. Holzleitner’s research does seem to provide further evidence that promiscuous women tend to prefer more masculine men.

Menstrual Cycle Affects Facial Preference

Women may be attracted to masculine-looking men at the most fertile time of their menstrual cycle. This “ovulatory shift hypothesis” contends that a woman’s preference for more masculine partners as short-term mates may be strongest at the peri-ovulatory phase of the cycle. In a study conducted in Scotland and Japan, researchers asked women to select one “face” they were most attracted to for a short-term sexual relationship. In the most fertile week of their menstrual cycle, women preferred more masculine faces. During the less fertile time, women chose men with more feminine-looking faces. These men were seen as kinder and more cooperative but less strong and healthy genetically. However, the choice of face did not vary for women using an oral contraceptive or those asked to choose the most attractive face for a long-term relationship. Research supporting the ovulatory shift hypothesis is not conclusive.

Preference for Masculine Faces Associated with Poor National Health

Evolutionary mating theories propose that women overlook the costs of selecting less paternally investing masculine traits to secure benefits associated with phenotypic masculinity that could enhance offspring (genetic) fitness. Indeed, preferences for facial masculinity were highest among women living in countries and states in the U.S. that have lower health and higher levels of pathogens. These findings are bolstered by experimental studies reporting that exposure to pathogens result in higher preferences for facial masculinity. This suggests that any social costs of selecting masculine partners may be circumvented under conditions where potential indirect (genetic) benefits may be realized.

Confusing and Contrary Research?

While some studies have shown a preference for more masculine traits in poor health conditions, other studies have shown a preference for less masculine traits in poor economic conditions (as stated above). Undoubtedly, poor economic conditions and poor health conditions go together in some cultural-geographical environments. This appears to reveal confusing or incompatible research results.

Preferences Related to Homicide Rates and Income Inequality

Adding to the mix of data, research by DeBruine, et al. reported that women’s preferences for facial masculinity were strongest in countries with high homicide rates, male-on-male violence, and income inequality (indices of male intra-sexual competition) rather than reduced national health.

Conclusion

In my last post (Side-swiped: Evolutionary Mismatch and Sex Differences with Mobile Dating) I explained how physical appearance takes on a disproportionately large role in dating by mobile app. A face flickers across the screen, and juices of attraction or disapproval are registered in an instant. The degree of facial masculinity is recorded in old regions of the brain before a reason for sexual interest can be articulated in words. (“The face is more honest than the mouth will ever be.”)

Women’s preference for a moderately masculine face aligns with the female long-term mating strategy of finding an “alpha-dominant” man who also reveals safety and loyalty in his face. This preference is often a compromise or trade-off made by a woman depending upon her attractiveness and mate value, degree of attraction to women, economic security, the health and safety of her environment, and her situational desire for a short-term fling. Even her menstrual cycle may play a role in the level of facial masculinity she “requires” for sexual attraction.

Studies broadly suggest that women’s perception of male attractiveness is sensitive to facial cues of masculinity. These facial preferences are shaped by sexual selection, which dictates the benefits and costs associated with choosing a (facially) feminine or masculine partner.

In the world of sexual selection, a face is not just a face.

References

Batres, C; Jones. B.; Perrett, D., “Attraction to Men and Women Predicts Sexual Dimorphism Preferences,” International Journal of Sexual Health online, Jan. 21, 2020.

Burriss, R., Ph.D., evolutionary psychologist at Basel University, Switzerland. The Psychology of Attractiveness podcast.

DeBruine, L.M., et al. “The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 277 (2010).

Holzleiter, I. J., & Perrett, D. I, “Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity: Trade-off Accounts Revisited.” Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2017) 3:304-320.

Marcinkowska, U. et al., “Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions.” Scientific Reports, March 2019.

Notes

*Sapiosexuality (SOI) refers to the desires for and attitudes toward short-term uncommitted and long-term committed sexual partners. More sexually open or unrestricted people report high scores for sexual openness, more sexual partners, and may not place high importance on sexual monogamy. By contrast, people with a more restricted sociosexuality have fewer sex partners and place greater importance on monogamy, love, and fidelity. SOI varies both within and between cultures in ways that conform to mating strategy theories.

** The Preferences Lab examines the information that faces convey. The lab’s website says: “It takes only milliseconds for our brains to process someone’s face, and unconsciously we use facial cues to make a myriad of social judgments, ranging from how dominant someone is to how attractive we find them.”

Appendix

From Science of Attraction and Beauty

Bilateral Symmetry

Humans and most other animals are bilaterally symmetric. The left and right sides of the body are basically the same, including the face in humans. Small deviations from this symmetry are called “fluctuating asymmetry” (FAs). Behavioral ecologist Randy Thornhill and other researchers have discovered a preference for symmetry (low FAs) and its influence on human perception of sexual beauty. Men with symmetrical bodies tend to have symmetrical faces and bodies that are more muscular, taller, and heavier than those of men with less symmetrical bodies. A bilaterally symmetrical face is a cue to genetic quality and developmental stability.

An Asymmetrical Male Face

Symmetry Linked to More Sex and Orgasms

Thornhill found that men with symmetrical bodies were more athletic and more dominant in personality than their peers. He also found that symmetrical human males started having sex three to four years earlier than asymmetrical males, have sex earlier in the courtship, and have two to three times as many partners.

In 1995, Steven Gangestad and Thornhill surveyed 86 couples and found that women with highly symmetrical partners were more than twice as likely to climax during intercourse than those with low-symmetry partners. When women have extramarital affairs, they tend to choose symmetrical men as partners.

Symmetrical women were favored too. They have more sexual partners than less symmetrical females and may be more fertile. Interestingly, women’s symmetry changes across the menstrual cycle. They are more symmetrical (and presumably more attractive to their partners) on the day of ovulation.

Averageness and Exceptionality

Humans love “average” faces (koinophilia). The more “average” you are, or closer to the mean of all people, the more attractive you are perceived to be. From an evolutionary perspective, a preference for extreme normality makes sense, says researcher Judith Langlois: “individuals with average population characteristics should be less likely to carry harmful genetic mutations.”

Yet, paradoxically, the faces we find most attractive are not average! Victor Johnson at New Mexico State University found the “ideal” female had a higher forehead than average, fuller lips, shorter jaw, smaller chin and nose, and more arched eyebrows. The most exquisite people are slightly away from average. “Average faces are attractive, but they are not usually the most beautiful. Maybe it’s the exaggerations of certain features the creates celestial features,” Johnson wrote.

Baby Face Phenomenon

Large eyes, thick lips, a relatively short nose, and a large curved forehead are considered baby face traits. Many studies indicate that this “baby face phenomenon,” or the tendency to find infant-like facial features attractive, occurs not only because these features suggest youth, but also because they elicit the same warm feelings as our typical response to babies, both human and animal.

Golden Ratio in the Face

The golden ratio or golden rectangle is one of the most satisfying of all geometric forms. It is a mathematical relationship (a/b = (a+b)/a = 1.618…) that appears in all of nature and science: plants, animal bodies, painting, architecture, sculpture and even music. It has been called the “divine proportion.”

The golden ratio occurs repeatedly in the dimensions of the human face and produces our perception of balance and physical beauty. The human head forms a golden rectangle with the eyes at the midpoint. The mouth and nose are each placed at golden sections of the distance between the eyes and the bottom of the chin. The golden ratio can be found in more than twenty facial calculations. Human facial beauty is based on divine proportion. From Queen Nefertiti to Marilyn Monroe, beautiful women throughout history display the golden ratio in the face.

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

« Older Entries

Next Entries »