Problems and Conditions of Boys and Men – Part 2.1

Problems and Conditions of Boys and Men – Part 2.1

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

Boys and men are struggling in the U.S. and across the globe. Here are the first six problems and conditions for boys and men identified by Richard Reeves in his book, Of Boys and Men – Why The Modern Male is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What To Do About It .

1. Boys are struggling in the classroom.

American girls are 14 percent more likely to be “school ready” than boys at age 5, controlling for parental characteristics.  By high school, two-thirds of the students in the top 10 percent of the class, ranked by G.P.A., are girls, while roughly two-thirds of the students at the lowest decile are boys.  In 2020, at the 16 top American law schools, not one of the flagship law reviews had a man as editor-in-chief.  Seventy percent (70%) of high school valedictorians are girls (Scott Galloway).  Sixty percent (60%) of all college students are women, and the gap is growing.

2. Men are struggling in the Workplace.

One in three American men with only a high school diploma — five million men — is now out of the labor force.  The most significant drop in employment is among young men aged 25 to 34.  Men who entered the workforce in 1983 will earn about 10 percent less in real terms in their lifetimes than those who started a generation earlier.  Over the same period, women’s lifetime earnings have increased by 33 percent.  Much of the income gains that middle-class American families have enjoyed since 1970 are because of increases in women’s earnings.

Labor Market Down for Men on Four Dimensions

The labor market trajectory for males in the U.S. has turned downward along four dimensions: skills acquisition, employment rates, occupational stature, and real wage levels.  There is a sharp decline in manufacturing jobs that put a high value on physical strength and a rise in service sector jobs.

3. Men are struggling with opioids, suicide, and disproportionate deaths from Covid.

Men account for nearly 75% of all “deaths of despair” — suicide and drug overdoses.

Opioids are not like other drugs, which might be taken to artificially boost confidence, energy, or illumination.  Opioids are taken simply to numb pain – perhaps physical at first, then existential pain.  They are not drugs of inspiration or rebellion but of isolation and retreat.

Men and Suicide

More men than women commit suicide, and the gender gap is widening in advanced economies.  Men are three times more likely to take their own life.  Suicide is now the biggest killer of British men under age 45.

“Useless and Worthless”

Australian researcher Fiona Shand studied the use of the phrases useless and worthless.   “The true cause of the male malaise,” she says, “is not the lack of labor force participation but cultural redundancy.”

In his 2019 essay on masculinity published in Harper’s Magazine, author Barrett Swanson described the common complaint from men, not as depression, but quiet desperation, a gnawing sense of purposelessness.”

Male Covid Deaths

And then there is Covid: for every 100 middle-aged women who died from Covid up to mid-September 2021, there were 184 middle-aged men who died from Covid.  (See my post “Why More Men Than Women Die of Covid“.)

4. Boys are more hindered by challenging environments than girls.

There are important differences between the prospects of boys and girls from less advantaged families.

“Exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods during childhood is particularly harmful to boys,” according to research on intergenerational patterns of poverty and mobility done by Raj Chetty. Boys suffer more from family instability, especially from the exit of biological fathers. Economic and social disadvantage hurts boys more than girls.

Girls in poor neighborhoods and unstable families may be able to climb their way out.  Boys are less likely to do so.  In Canada, boys born into the poorest households are twice as likely to remain poor as their female counterparts.

Boys’ Academic Performance More Affected by Family Background

In American schools, boys’ academic performance is more influenced by family background than girls’ performance.  Boys raised by single parents have lower rates of college enrollment than girls raised by single parents.

Corrosive Intergenerational Cycle

The economic and social disadvantage for boys results in a corrosive intergenerational cycle. As working-class men struggle, their families become poorer; and in these families, boys suffer the most, which damages their prospects in adult life.  Male malaise becomes an inherited condition.

Need a New Gender Economics

“Public policy needs to be informed by a new gender economics, at least when it comes to social mobility,” says Reeves.  “The dominant narrative of gender equality is framed almost exclusively in terms of disadvantages of girls and women.  But if we consider gender equality in the context of both race and class, a different picture emerges.  Especially at the bottom of the economic ladder, it is boys and men who are falling behind girls.”

5. Black men are particularly disadvantaged and at-risk.

Raj Chetty’s research (2018) from Opportunity Insights found that Black men are much less likely than white men to rise the income ladder, while Black and white women raised by poor parents have similar rates of upward intergenerational mobility.

Black Mobility Gap is Driven by Men’s Outcomes, Not Women’s

Chetty and his team concluded that the overall Black-white intergenerational mobility gap “is entirely driven by differences in men’s, not women’s outcomes.”  The main problem is the low incomes of Black men, especially those raised in poverty.  Despite impressive progress made by Black women, their children are still much more likely to grow up poor, reinforcing generational inequality.

Breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty for Black Americans will require a transformation in the economic outcomes for Black men.

Black Girls Do Better Than White Boys and Significantly Better Than Black Men

 The gender gap in education between Black women and Black men is much wider than the one between white women and white men.  For every Black man getting a college degree, there are two Black women.

Black girls are more likely than white boys to have graduated from high school; young black women aged 18-24 are more likely than young white men to be enrolled in college, and a higher proportion of Black women aged 25-29 hold postgraduate degrees than white men of the same age.  (National Center for Educational Statistics – 2018.)

 The Unique Obstacles for Black Boys and Men

 A comparison of the success of black girls and women in education to white and black boys and men reveals the unique condition of black boys and men.  Black men enter the world of work with fewer educational credentials than almost any other demographic group.  Then they face a greater risk of discrimination in the labor market as well as higher rates of incarceration.  As Chetty reports, Black men raised in relatively affluent families have lower employment rates than white men raised in poverty.

A summary of Chetty’s research in the New York Times concludes: “there is something unique about the obstacles black males face.”

 Black Men Stigmatized as Dangerous

According to studies of implicit bias conducted by political scientists Ismail White and Corrine McConnaughy, one in three white Americans rank “many or almost all” Black men as “violent” compared to just one in ten who says the same of white men.   According to McConnaughy and White, “the gender modifier does unique work in accessing negative notions of black men.  Black men are discriminated against because they are men.”

Black Men Seen as “Toxic” Long Before Term Was Broadly Applied

Sociologist Rashawn Ray showed that Black men are less likely to be physically active in neighborhoods that are mostly white.  Black men are trying to avoid being seen as a threat.  Black men have a different social reality from their black female counterparts, Ray says.  Black masculinity was seen as “toxic” long before the term was broadly applied.

Black Men More Likely to be Arrested and Shot

Seen as more threatening, Black men are more likely to be stopped by the police, more likely to be frisked, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to be shot than white men.

War on Drugs is a War on Black men

The war on drugs became a war on Black men.  They are more than three times more likely to be arrested for a drug crime than white men (though no more likely to use drugs) and nine times more likely to end up in a state prison due to a drug offense.

Black Men Treated Like Criminals

Black men are not only less likely to be hired if they have a criminal record but also because employers are more likely to view them as criminals anyway.  One study showed that Black men without a criminal record are less likely to be hired than a similarly qualified white man with a criminal record.  Researcher and author Devah Pager writes, “effectively, the job market in America regards Black men who have never been criminals as though they were.”

Black Family and Marriage is Under Stress

Compared to both white and Hispanic women, Black women marry later in life, are less likely to marry at all, and have higher rates of marital instability, according to a study (“The Growing Racial and Ethnic Divide in U.S. Marriage Patterns”) published in Future Child (2015).  Black women in their early 40s are five times as likely as white women of the same age to have never married.   Black marriage has been undermined by anti-Black racism and specific challenges Black men face.  Dire economic conditions create a smaller pool of “marriageable [Black] men,’ so fewer couples tie the knot.

Must Be a Breadwinner to be Marriageable

To be marriageable, a man must be a breadwinner.  While it may seem outdated and sexist, here is the reality: most people, including most Black people, agree with sociologist William Julius Wilson (The Truly Disadvantaged) that breadwinning potential is highly prized in a potential mate.  Eighty-four percent of Black Americans say that to be a good husband or partner, it is “very important” for a man to be “able to provide for their family financially,” compared to 67% of white respondents (no small number).

(See “Men are unmarriageable” in the upcoming post, problem # 9.)

We Must Clear the Obstacles for Black Men

Reeves explains why more needs to be done to clear the obstacles in the path of Black men.  “There is a fear, even today, that helping men means hindering women.  But it is not true.  Raising men up does not mean holding women down or displacing them.  It means rising together.”

Reeves concludes:

The gendered racism faced by Black boys and men is unique in its level of harm, and it is time to face it squarely.

6. Policies and programs designed to promote social mobility often work for women but not for men.

A program in the city of Kalamazoo, Michigan (the “Kalamazoo Promise”) pays in-state college tuition for all students educated in the city’s K-12 school system.  The program increased the number of women getting college degrees by 45 percent.   But men’s graduation rates remained flat.  Reeves lists a whole series of programs (in various cities and states), from early childhood education to college support efforts, that produced impressive gains for women but did not boost men.

 Poor Outcomes of Boys and Men Are Buried in the Analysis

There is a recurring pattern in evaluation studies of policy interventions that shows more substantial effects for girls and women than for boys and men.  Yet, researchers rarely disaggregate results by gender.  The poor outcomes for boys and men are buried in the overall success of these programs.  Reeves says this is irresponsible and implies a certain kind of bias that celebrates female progress but ignores the languishing of boys and men.   When researchers notice this gender gap, they mostly shake their heads and have no answers for what is causing it.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Of Boys and Men – Revisitation of a Crisis in Six Parts

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

by | 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?

Why Am I Interested in Heterosexual Sex and Heterosexual Relationships?

by | 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. 

Not Just Listening – “A Little Big-Dick Energy”

Not Just Listening – “A Little Big-Dick Energy”

by | Apr 26, 2022 | Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality

According to internet memes and posts by women, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the sexiest man of 2022. Why is that?

Comedian and television personality Bill Maher gives an explanation during the “new rules” segment of Real Time on March 25. (See link below.) Maher’s critique comports directly with evolutionary mate selection science as he laments the current zeitgeist between men and women in America. Maher notes the ever-increasing lack of passion for the American male and a general lack of sexual passion overall. (I have written about the “sexual deficit” in a prior post; see below.) Maher metaphorically suggests that sometimes women and the world (in tribal conflict) need “a little big-dick energy.”

Nailing It

As a companion piece for this discussion, also watch below the immensely popular satirical video It is Not About the Nail, which makes a reasonable assertion that women want a man who listens and validates – a man who does not jump immediately to “sending solutions.” This video also shows a silly caricature of a woman who refuses to acknowledge the obvious (a nail in her head) or accept a man for doing so.

Listening Is Not Sufficiently Sexy

Succeeding (“nailing it”) in this moment of female testing may be to just listen and resist trying to fix something – an interpretation often given by (especially female) relationship gurus. But as Maher astutely points out and mate selection science proves, women do not want a man who has no solutions and cannot fix anything. That man is not fuckable. Full stop. Men need to listen, validate, and be solid in silence, and yet ultimately, they better have solutions for problems in the real world. Perhaps it is a timing thing that emotionally intelligent men can navigate. But the interpersonal terrain for a man is clouded by this double bind. Those clouds portend possible thunderstorms for male-female understanding and his sanity.

Zelenskyy Has Redefined Manhood?

In her column, Kathleen Parker (Washington Post) addressed the Zelenskyy phenomenon, saying, “Zelenskyy has gone a long way toward redefining manhood. He is the modern-day warrior-artist — political and presidential, fearless and faithful, humble yet cocky. Zelenskyy is an everyman in his trademark T-shirt and half-zip, shouting to the world that he is not afraid. Art and war have been companions through the centuries, but it is rare to discover someone who combines the spirit of both disciplines.”

The Sweet Spot Plus Courage

Parker’s description succinctly captures the preferential sweet spot of female long-term mate selection strategy (see post below). Women seek this perfect blend of masculinity – a man with status, power, and capacity for provider-ship (like an “everyman” who happens to be the alpha male of an entire country) that is also loyal, generous, sincere, and most of all, courageous. This man will protect her at all costs. Courage is sexy for both sexes. But it is indispensable for men to win the hearts of women around the world.

Tension Between Two Mating Priorities

A woman’s long-term mating strategy needs “resources”* (the provision of status and power) and character – especially generosity and loyalty to her and their children. As women may readily tell their female friends, there is often a tension between these two dating/mating priorities. In America, resources usually win this game of mate selection preference, often with rationalization and denial about the lack of optimal character. Good providers and protectors get a more extended mate selection “interview” than “beta” men who are good listeners.**

With Zelenskyy, there is no need to rationalize. He is the sexist man in the world right now because he so obviously hits the sweet spot of these two preferences.

Zelenskyy Has Not Redefined Manhood – Many Came Before

Kathleen Parker is by no means the first to identify the “warrior-artist.” Years ago, Geoffrey Miller and Tucker Max identified this man in their book Mate as the “tender-defender.” Stephen Marche in The Unmade Bed called him the “macho-caretaker.” Sex author and relationship expert Alana Pratt called him a “noble badass.” (Could there be a better description for Zelenskyy?)

Threading the Needle

One of the “needle-threading” double binds that men encounter is reflected by this mate selection request by women: “I want a ‘beast’ for protection — who is dangerous to others but not to me.” Author and couple’s psychotherapist, Esther Perel, is unequivocal on this subject. She calls this man the “tamed beast.”

Masculinity is Like Coffee

Maher said there may be a little but necessary “toxicity” in this sexier “Zelenskyy-man.” Maher uses the term “toxicity” for convenience, not as a psychological or sociological truth. But he says, “masculinity is like coffee; even when you decaffeinate it, there is still a little caffeine in there.” Maher’s overall point, which I generally embrace, is that we need to stop “decaffeinating” our men. Such men are not sexy, and they will not protect us.

Zelenskyy is the Heroic Masculine

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a hero. He is not an example of toxic masculinity. He is an example of noble male energy. He is a man of action and clarity of purpose, undeterred by rival dictators (or anybody else).

The Way of the Superior Man

Over 25 years ago, David Deida named and described the virtues of the warrior-artist, the sexually and spiritually evolved man, in his seminal work, The Way of the Superior Man. He anticipated the powerful impact of Zelenskyy on women. Chapter 37 of his book is entitled She Wants the “Killer” In You. “Although your woman doesn’t want you to be a killer, she is turned on by your capacity to kill. She is turned off by your lack of this capacity. She does not want you to be a killer, but she does want to feel you are capable of facing death for her. And it is this capacity that makes you trustable as a man, both as a human warrior but also as a spiritual warrior.”

A Superior Man Will Die for You

A superior man, a Volodymyr Zelenskyy and all the Ukrainian men who stayed behind, will die to protect his woman (and his country), but he absolutely will not always do what she wants. Sometimes he will just take the nail out of her head.

Now Please Watch:
Related posts and/or pages:

 

*“Resources” equates to financial/material security and is, therefore, a direct proxy for physical protection.

**Physical attractiveness is heavily weighted in contemporary culture, but is influenced directly, in the female mind, by status, power, and to some degree, character. It is worth noting: Zelenskyy is not tall nor exceptionally handsome.

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

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

by | 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
  1. 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. 

Mate Value of High-Income Men: Seeking Arrangements and the Erotic-Economic Bargain

Mate Value of High-Income Men: Seeking Arrangements and the Erotic-Economic Bargain

by | Oct 12, 2021 | Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality

“You can lose a lot of money chasing women, but you will never loose women by chasing money.”
                    ~ Chris Rock — I Think I Love My Wife

Evolution and Behavior published (September 2021) a recent study by Rosemary Hopcroft 1 that confirms that high-income men have a higher value as long-term mates in the U.S.   The study’s conclusions are almost too obvious to report given years of data and research that have confirmed this fact of mate selection in America (and around the world), but like climate change, the benefits of Covid vaccines, and the integrity of the 2020 election result, some things bear repeating over and over until the impact is understood.

I will take this occasion to share the conclusions of this study and revisit related posts and pages on Mating Straight Talk (also see concluding Appendix.)  My intent (a return to basics) is similar to that of First Principle: Acknowledge Male-Female Differences, where I reviewed fundamental sex differences as a prologue to understanding the sexual fluidity of women.  In a couple of weeks, I will get back to that topic:  beginning a deep dive into the conditions, context, and politics (all proximate causes) of contemporary female sexuality.

Hopcroft Study

“High-income men have high value as long-term-mates in the U.S.: personal income and the probability of marriage, divorce, and childbearing in the U.S.”  Rosemary Hopcroft in Evolution and Human Behavior, 42 (2021) 409-417.

Study Abstract (abridged)

“Using data that includes complete measures of male biological fertility for a large-scale probability sample of the U.S. population (N=55,281), this study shows that high-income men2are more likely to marry, are less likely to divorce, if divorced are more likely to remarry, and are less likely to be childless than low-income men.

Study Conclusions

• Women Prioritize Earning Capability

Income is not associated with the probability of marriage for a woman and is positively related to divorce.  High-income women are less likely to remarry after divorce and more likely to be childless than low-income women.

These results are behavioral evidence that women are more likely than men to prioritize earning capabilities in a long-term mate and suggest that high-income men have high value as long-term mates in the U.S.”

• Higher-income Men in the U.S. and Scandinavia

Prior research in the U.S., Norway, Sweden, and Finland has shown that higher-income men have more biological children than lower-income men and higher-income women have fewer biological children compared to lower-income women.

• Men with Status in Pre-industrial Societies

Hopcroft says research findings in the U.S. and Scandinavia are relevant to studies in behavioral ecology and evolutionary demography that detail the relationship between status and reproductive success for men in pre-industrial societies.   “Status is positively related to reproductive success for men in pre-industrial societies, whether status is measured as land ownership, hunting ability, prestige, or wealth.”

• Evolutionary Psychology and Mate Preferences

According to Hopcroft, these research findings are also supported by the literature in evolutionary psychology regarding sex differences in mate preferences. The positive relationship between income and fertility is predicted by sexual strategies theory. “Financial prospects and status in a long-term mate are a higher priority for women than for men, according to mate preferences research.”  (Buss, 1989, 2016; Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Fales et al., 2016; Walter et al., 2020; Wang et al. 2018; Williams & Sulikowski, 2020.)

• Income and Wealth are Most Important in the U.S.

In most modern societies, status is measured by education, occupation, or household income.  Hopcroft reports that in the U.S., education does not have a robust correlation with income.  Income or wealth is the most crucial ingredient for reproductive decision-making in the U.S., while reproductive success is still associated with overall male status.

• Low-Income Men Are More Likely to Be Childless

Men’s income is positively associated with fertility because low-income men are more likely to be childless than high-income men.  “This is further supported,” Hopcroft says, “by evidence that low-income or unemployed men are less likely to be married and more likely to be divorced.”

• Watch What She Does — Not What She Says

Hopcroft cites the research of evolutionary psychologists Paul Eastman, Eli Finkel, and Jeffry Simpson (2019) 3 that showed stated preferences for traits in a partner might not be in alignment with a chosen partner’s actual characteristics.  “Female choice influences the occurrence of marriage, divorce, and childbearing.  This suggests a revealed female preference for earning capability in a long-term mate, regardless of stated preferences or ideals.”  In other words, watch who women marry, not who they say they might want to marry.

• Females Value Resources, Men Not So Much

“While income for men predicted greater success in long-term mating and reproduction, income for women was either unrelated or negatively related to long-term mating and reproduction.”

• It is About Female Choice

“Increased marriageability, lack of divorce, re-marriageability, and increased likelihood of fatherhood by high-income men are evidence that the marriage, divorce, and reproductive behavior of men reflect female choice,” Hopcroft said.

• Societal Norms Are Shaped by Evolved Predispositions

Hopcroft asserts (as do most evolutionary psychologists) that evolutionary approaches and sexual strategy theories take into account societal norms, values, and individual preferences that “are themselves shaped by evolved predispositions, so that sociological explanations do not exclude a role for evolved factors.”

• High-income Men Beat Low-income Men in Intrasexual Competition

Any reproductive advantage that accrued to high-income men stemmed from their marriageability and re-marriageability alone, Hopcroft’s analysis suggested.  “Competition for mates is always intrasexual,” Hopcroft concluded, “and the evidence presented here suggests that in this competition, high-income men win out over low-income men.”

• Higher-income Men More Likely to Have Younger Mates

Hopcroft reminds us that sexual strategies theory predicts male preference for younger women as mates, and men with higher personal income may be more likely to fulfill that preference. 4

Seeking Arrangement

One way for high-income men to fulfill the preference for younger mates is to find motivated and willing women online.  The phenomenon of young women seeking financial and “entrepreneurial” support from rich men has seen a recent uptick.  College is expensive.  The website service Seeking Arrangement matches “sugar daddies” with “sugar babies.”  The site’s mission directly embraces and expresses the perennial exchange between men and women – what sociologist Catherine Hakim calls the use of “erotic capital” to achieve mating objectives.5

Erotic Capital

Hakim defined erotic capital as “an individual’s beauty, sexual attractiveness, enhanced social integration, liveliness, social presentation, sexuality, and fertility that can provide opportunities to advance in life.”  Erotic capital, she says, plays a subconscious role in daily life decisions, such as career offerings, enrichment opportunities, and social networking.    Hakim asserts that current dating apps and subsequent decisions for marriage are driven by a woman’s erotic capital and a man’s economic capital.   I call this the erotic-economic bargain. (See Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.)

Seeking a Wallet in the Form of a Person

Seeking Arrangement implores women to “meet a rich sugar daddy who can provide exotic trips, lavish gifts, financial support, mentoring, and the up-graded lifestyle you desire.”  Every profile comes with a “gift wish list.” One profile I read (for research purposes only) said, “I need a man that gets off by buying me things — seeking a wallet in the form of a person.”

What’s Your Price?

Seeking Arrangement has created several sister sites, including “What’s Your Price?” which allows men to bid against each other for a first date with a beautiful woman.  This bidding process promotes intrasexual economic competition between men that gives the woman a cash reward – a pay-to-play before you even get on the field.

Glorified Escort and Sex Work

Female proponents of the Seeking Arrangement tout it as a vehicle for female empowerment (with some validity).  In reality, the site primarily operates as a glorified escort and sex-worker service, which has existed for thousands of years.  Some of the women may be fantasizing about securing a rich man to marry.  Men, of course,  are fantasizing about having sex with beautiful young women.

Erotic-Economic Bargain – the Unconscious Infrastructure of Heterosexuality

The exchange of physical beauty and fertility (erotic power) for economic power (and/or protection) is the perennial bargain of human mating over eons of time.  This bargain is rooted in the willingness and capacity for parental (economic) investment from the man and the reproductive (sexual) access allowed by the women in response to that investment.  It is the unconscious infrastructure of heterosexuality — the ultimate exchange in the mating economy.

Male Aspiration for Dominance

The ability of a man to protect and provide for children is the crucial ingredient and evolutionary force driving this mate preference by women; it is the trigger for her sexual availability.  Her youth and fertility is her erotic power — a power that controls and influences male aspiration for social dominance, economic power, and competition with other men.   Sexual access to women is the penultimate motivation and prize.

Assortative Paring By Mate Value

The strength of a man’s preference for physically attractive women and a women’s preference for financially successful men works conjointly in relationship to their mate value.   At the upper end of their respective mate value, there is an assortative pairing of the beautiful with the rich.  For the “average” man or woman, the erotic economic bargain is not as stark, but its “hard-ware” (infrastructure) remains an influence along the entire spectrum of class and physical attractiveness. (See Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.)

Renegotiating the Bargain?

In recent decades, the erotic-economic bargain may be undergoing a bit of renegotiation with surface or cosmetic changes that comport with our particular political moment.  Female empowerment and independence from men are progressing and evolving in their influence.   But most evidence “on the ground” of the modern dating scene does not show movement away from our ancient, evolutionary adaptations; there has not been a significant change in the foundational priorities and preferences for a partner by men and women.  Content analysis of dating websites reveals that women explicitly ask for “financially secure” or “professional” partners roughly twenty times more often than men.

Foundational Collusion

Although the exchange of sex for resources is a shared agreement, it is often implicit and “secretly” held – that is what is meant by “collusion.”  Men and women have vastly different parts to play in keeping the agreement in place.  This foundational collusion of exchange influences all other pieces of the heterosexual “puzzle.”  The erotic-economic bargain is often not explicit or conscious; it is largely “undiscussable” (Undiscussables).

“Erotic-Economic Bargain” As  Modern Evolutionary Mismatch

The hard-wired erotic-economic bargain is now destructive to the planet.   Getting off fossil fuel (which is related) may be easier than “getting off” (no pun intended) the desire by women for men with power and resources and the desire by men for women who are physically beautiful (fertile).  The “good news” is that change probably starts (or really must start) with women.

“You’ve Got the Whole World In Your Hands”

When “high mate-value” women TRULY prefer (prioritize) to mate with men of character rather than men of power, status, and money, men will change their behavior, and the planet will be saved.  (Allow me this bit of hyperbole.)  The world may be decidedly less sexy, but women’s capacity for flexibility and fluidity may be part of the roadmap for a more sustainable future.  Sexual access to women by men is a hard-wired co-variant to the desire by men for youthful, fertile, female beauty.  If women changed the criteria for sexual access, there might be a possibility for change.

It’s A Wicked Problem

In addition to hard-wired mating preferences, the intransigence of the erotic-economic bargain presents a “wicked” problem6 with multi-causal systems interacting together – including unregulated capitalism and the myth of unlimited growth.  A social safety net and guaranteed care for children may be needed to change the sexual psychology of men and women in the U.S. .

Sexual Juice Repurposed

Yes, a lot of “sexual juice” between men and women will have to be reconfigured or “repurposed” in a world where alpha-male power can no longer be an energetic-biochemical turn-on.   Women must lead the way.  Female choice is the preeminent dynamic of mate selection.  We could just kill all the men by destroying the Y chromosome – but, if you are watching Last Man Standing on Hulu, that may not be an optimal world for the women (and trans-men) who are left.

Notes

  1. Hopcroft is a Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She has published widely in evolutionary sociology and comparative and historical sociology in journals that include the American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, Social Forces, Evolution and Human Behavior, and Human Nature.  She is the author of Sociology: A Bio-Social Introduction (2010).
  2. Income is from reported monthly earnings and amounts received from all businesses and investments. High vs. low income was determined by a statistical cut-off within the subject sample distribution.
  3. From the University of California-Davis, Northwestern University, and University of Minnesota, respectively.
  4. See “Age Differences of Male Celebrities and Their Partners,” Appendix, Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.
  5. For discussion of Hakim’s research and related issues, see The Male Sexual Deficit: Social Fact of the 21st Century.
  6. From social planning and systems theory, a wicked problem is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are difficult to recognize. Most importantly, there are multiple interacting variables and no single solution.
References

Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences:  Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.  The Behavior and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-14.

Buss, D.M. (2016). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.

Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019).  Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations.  Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77-110.

Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2019). Best practices for testing thy predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2) 167-181.

Fales, M. R., et al. (2016). Mating markets and bargaining hands:  Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 78-87.

Hopcroft, R. L. (2006). Sex, status and reproductive success in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 104-120.

Hopcroft, R. L. (2015). Sex differences in the relationship between status and number of offspring in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(2), 146-151.

Hopcroft, R. L. (2019).  Sex differences in the Association of Family and Personal Income and wealth with fertility in the United States, Human Nature, 30, 477-495

Walter, K. V., et al. (2020) Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries:  A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31 (4) , 408-423

Wang, G., et al. (2018). Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 220-225.

Williams, M., & Sulikowski, D. (2020).  Implicit and explicit compromises in long-term partner choice.  Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110226.

Appendix

From Mate Value and Mating Economy,  Science of Attraction and Beauty, and Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies: Domain # 2 of Male-Female Difference

 Women’s Long-term Strategy

Women’s long-term mating is driven by genetic characteristics and interests of our species: internal fertilization, an extended period of gestation, prolonged infant dependence on mother’s milk, and the need for relatively “high” male parental investment compared to other primates

Women Prioritize Male Status

Women have evolved to prioritize male status before being concerned about other mate characteristics.   It makes sense for women to first verify that a man has sufficient status/resources and then (and only then) seek positive levels of other characteristics. 

Mate Value Budget

Using a budget–allocation and mating screening method, evolutionary psychologist Norman Li found that under constraints of low budget, men spent the highest proportion of their budget on physical attractiveness, and women spent the highest percentage of their budget on status and resource-related characteristics.  As budgets increased, spending on these traits decreased but increased on other traits, such as creativity and intelligence.  But, when choices were highly constrained, men prioritized some minimal level of physical attractiveness, and women prioritized some minimum level of status.  Both sexes also prioritized kindness.

chart: female preferences for a long-term mate
Trade-offs Between Resources and Character

In addition to protection and a provision of resources, a woman’s long-term strategy seeks character traits that ensure stability and loyalty to her and her children over the long term.

What is often more salient in female mate selection and relationship satisfaction is the tension between the two preferences inside the female long-term strategy:  resources and character.   A woman’s long-term mating strategy often involves ambivalence and internal confusion related to her desire for a mate with resources and status and her preference for loyalty, kindness, intelligence, and character traits for parenting. (See “trade-off boundary” on the diagram below.)  In America, resources usually win this game of mate selection preference, often with rationalization and denial about the lack of optimal character.

Venn diagram: women's long-term mating strategy
Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.