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. 

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

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

by | May 10, 2021 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Men's Issues, Sexuality

the”‘“Feminists insist that men’s greater demand for sexual activity is an outdated myth.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

~ Catherine Hakim

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

Unsatisfying Sex Does Not Account for the Deficit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male Sexual Deficit in the United States

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

Adverse Effects of Male Sex deficit

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

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

Commercial Sex Services Demonstrate the Deficit

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

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

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

Sex Work is Lucrative But Not a Cure for the Deficit

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

Cause #1 of the Deficit:  Lower Female Sex Drive

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

Measure of Desire in Developed Countries

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

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

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

Women’s Lower Interest Is Not a Disorder

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

Men Want More Sex Partners – More Evidence of the Deficit

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

Sex Difference in Rates of Infidelity is Narrowing

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

Consenting to Sex with Strangers – Sex Differences

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

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

Unfulfilled Longings 

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

Men Have a Higher Sex Drive – Period

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women Liked Very Few Profiles

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

Few Women Actually On Ashley Madison

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

Examples of Female Choosiness

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

Attraction Disparity – the Pernicious Underbelly of the Deficit

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

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

Eons of Sexual Selection Demonstrate the Disparity

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

Men Lower Their Standards

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

Supply and Demand Forces in the Mating Marketplace

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

All mate selection behaviors are driven by supply and demand forces for sexual access to the best or highest-mate-value mates.  Fertile (and consensually most “beautiful”) women are in great demand, and the supply of men interested in them creates significant differences in behavioral dynamics – leading to a multitude of male initiation strategies, misreading of signals by women (male “over-perception bias”), and a reproductive variance curve.

Most Men Want the Same Women

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

Pursuer and Pursued “Are Not” The Same People

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

The psychology (lived experience) of the sexual initiator and pursuer is vastly different than the psychology of the one pursued and the one who chooses among her pursuers.  This general difference between men and women cannot be overstated. (See “We Are Not the Same People” in Appendix)

Mate Value is the “Currency” of the Deficit

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

“In or Out of Your League”

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

Reproductive Variance – There Has Always Been a Male Sexual Deficit

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

Most Men are Losers in the Mating Game

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

Male Sexual Deficit and Female Choice

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

Less Deficit On Campus

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

Misperceptions About Mate Value – An Artifact of the Deficit

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

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

Some Men Are Dumb and Dumber

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

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

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

Everybody Wants the Best Deal in the Mating Market

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

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

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

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

Female sexual fluidity is growing. There is an increase in the percentage of women who identify as lesbian or bi-sexual in practice.   Women are turning away from men for romance and connection; they prefer the company of women for a variety of socio-cultural reasons (e.g., memes of “toxic masculinity and the “me-too” movement).

Liberal Generation Zs – An Increasingly Fluid Population

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

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

Buss Disputes Male Sexual Deficit as Source of Sexual Coercion

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

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

But Male Violence and Sexual Deficit May be Linked

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

Future Trends of the Male Sex Deficit

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix

Kontula’s 12 Measures of Sexual Desire

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

Catherine Hakim

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

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

Hakim defines “erotic capital” as an individual’s beauty, sexual attractiveness, enhanced social integration, liveliness, social presentation, sexuality, and fertility that can provide opportunities to advance in life. Hakim says erotic capital plays a subconscious role in daily life decisions, such as career offerings, enrichment opportunities, and social networking.    Hakim asserts that current dating apps and subsequent decisions for marriage are driven by a woman’s erotic capital and a man’s economic capital.   (I have named this the erotic-economic bargain.)

David Buss

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

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

You are the people of the Adored

I am the people of the Longing. 

We are not the same kind of people at all.

You are the people who receive the desire;

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

You are the people who receive “gifts”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not the same people.

 

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

Root of Our Political Divide – Part 2: Post-Trump Authoritarianism

Root of Our Political Divide – Part 2: Post-Trump Authoritarianism

by | Nov 10, 2020 | Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Men's Issues

Trump’s appeal resides on the primordial plains of Africa, where human leadership preferences were formed by the brutalities of daily living. ~ Hector Garcia

As part of a post-mortem on the presidential election, I will turn my attention to the “slide” of conservatism into full-blown authoritarianism — from a “normal” conservative fear of outsiders into the xenophobic overload that characterizes the authoritarian personality.

The Divide Inside the Mandate

Joe Biden got more raw votes than any presidential candidate in history. In comparison to the percentage of votes garnered by winning Presidential candidates in the past 30 years, only Barack Obama in 2008 got a higher percentage of votes (52.9) than Joe Biden. Most pundits would call this a strong mandate. But for many of us, this did not feel like a repudiation of Donald Trump – not the kind of cathartic dismissal we were hoping for. Seventy million Americans voted for Donald Trump, more votes than he received in 2016. Democrats lost seats in the House. State legislatures did not get more ‘blue” and the Senate portends a doubtful (yet still possible) majority for Democrats.

We Are More Tribal Than Ever

We are a tribal nation in a tribal media ecosystem. Even if Biden had won by 10 million or more votes, we would still be a nation of roughly 20-30 million Americans with a latent or activated authoritarian personality. It behooves us to understand who they are and how they “happened.” Authoritarianism in America is not going away with the defeat of Donald Trump. Far from it. Columnist Dana Milbank wrote on November 6: “The next couple of years could be ugly and unproductive. But gone will be a president who daily weakens democracy with authoritarian tendencies. Out will be a man who fuels our basest instincts with racism, vulgarity, vitriol, violence, self-dealing lies and conspiracy theories.” Yes, this particular despot is gone as President (not as leader or media mogul), but his followers and their subjective grievances remain in the American family.

My God — It Took A Pandemic

As Molly Ball most aptly put it (Time, November 5), “Win or lose, Trump has engineered a lasting tectonic shift in the American political landscape, fermenting a level of anger, resentment and suspicion that will not be easy for his successor to surmount. Even with a Biden win, “it’s still that case the an openly bigoted aspiring authoritarian not only won the presidency but captured the complete loyalty of one of two major political parties, and – but for a once-in-century-pandemic, he might have been reelected.”

Revisiting The Root of It – Part 1

In my last post, Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide: The Root of It – Part 1, I provided evidence that:

  1. Human mating strategies (sexual selection) undergird our political affiliations and are extricability linked to evolved sex differences between men and women. A male-centric reproductive strategy is shaped by struggles for dominance in mate competitions, while a female-centric strategy is shaped by demands of rearing offspring.
  2. There is a fundamental gender gap in partisan political preference. Females tend to be political liberals (the “mommy party”) and males tend to be political conservatives (the “daddy party”) based on the evolutionary adaptations required of each sex.
  3. Conservatives (and men) are more comfortable with social hierarchies than liberals. Women lead the charge to check the impulses of dominant and authoritarian men unless they want to mate with them (a common collusion in primate and human mating).
  4. The psychology of in-group vs. outgroup and xenophobia vs. xenophilia, are driving forces of political affiliation. Conservatives are more xenophobic than liberals and men are more xenophobic than women.

This post will build on the above tenets with a closer look “downstream” into the roots of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism comes out of the aspirations for dominance among men and the fears and hopes of those who follow such men. I will address the psychology of social dominance and touch on the politics and psychology of the aforementioned gender gap, especially related to male identity. I will draw from a variety of post-election analyses but will start with foundational insights from Hector Garcia’s groundbreaking book (central to Part 1 of this series): Sex, Power, and Partisanship: How Evolutionary Science Makes Sense of Our Political Divide.

Struggle to Maintain Dominance Hierarchies

Hector Garcia sums up the implied motivation of the despotic leader: “Among humans, as among all social animals, a higher position on the dominance hierarchy affords preferential access to territory, food, and mates. And so, while political science rarely describes socioeconomic stances in evolutionary terms, the struggle to maintain dominance hierarchies, or to equalize them, reflects our long history of vying for position in rank-stratified primate social groups. Moreover, if conservatism reflects an extreme form of the male brain (see Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide: The Root of It – Part 1) and liberalism its inverse, then we would expect to find evidence that conservative economic policy is embedded in a male reproductive strategy, and liberal economic policy in a female reproductive strategy. And this is exactly what we find.”

Authoritarianism is a product of our male-gendered psychology forged through the pressure of male mate competition. ~ Hector Garcia

Social Dominance Orientation

Political scientists have developed a measure called Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) to reflect the extent to which an individual wishes his or her group to be dominant over another group. People who score higher on the SDO scale favor hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and policies, whereas those lower on SDO tend to favor ideologies or policies that lessen hierarchies. SDO has been consistently found to predict conservatism and its corollaries, including economic conservatism and racial prejudice.

Men and Conservatives Favor Hierarchies

Men score higher on SDO than women. This difference holds across age, culture, nationality, religion, income level, educational attainment, and political ideology. Political conservatives generally score higher on SDO than do liberals. Men with high testosterone levels tend to have higher SDO scores. Those with high SDO are more likely to support war.

High SDO Disfavors Domestic Policies But Favors Patriotism

SDO also has implications within groups. It correlates negatively with domestic policies such as affirmative action, social welfare programs, support for women’s rights, and issues concerning the sexual control of women. Higher social dominance not only disfavors the out-group, but it also favors the in-group. Accordingly, SDO is associated with greater patriotism – a commitment to the larger tribe. Patriotism is a more strongly expressed value of conservatives and Republicans.

“Father Knows Best”

In George Lakoff’s 1996 book, Moral Politics, he examined how political values tend to arise from the fact that we are all first governed in our families. The way your ideal family is governed is a model for the ideal form of government. This is often how your real family is governed, though some people rebel and adopt an opposite ideal.

Conservative moral values arise from what Lakoff calls the “strict father family.” In this model, father knows best. He decides right and wrong. He has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse accept his worldview and uphold his authority. It is his moral duty to punish his children painfully when they disobey. If his “children” do not prosper, they are not disciplined and so deserve their poverty. Responsibility is thus taken to be a personal responsibility, not a social responsibility. You are responsible for yourself, not for others.

Who’s On Top?

“All politics is moral, ” says Lakoff. “Voters don’t vote their self-interest. They vote their values.” This is how Lakoff saw the conservative-based moral hierarchy in 1996:

  • God above man
  • Man above nature
  • The disciplined (strong) above the undisciplined (weak)
  • The rich above the poor
  • Employers above employees
  • Adults over children
  • Western cultures above other cultures
  • Men above women
  • Whites above nonwhites
  • Christians above non-Christians
  • Straights above Gays
Trump Supporters Have a Strict Father Morality

Conservative policies flow from the strict father worldview and this hierarchy. Trump is an extreme case, though very much in line with conservative policies of the Republican party and with an authoritarian personality. Most Trump supporters have a strict father morality. The Trump presidency gave them self-respect. Their self-respect is more important than the details of his policies, even if some of those policies hurt them. (See “What’s the Matter With Kansas Redux” below.)

Strict Father Can Be Despotic

Fred Trump was the quintessential strict father for his son, Donald. He brow-beat him into the ways of dominance. By the time Donald was sent to the military school, he was ready to put it into practice. Donald thrived in the hierarchical environment of military school and learned the efficacy and “joy” of being a bully. He learned the ways of authoritarianism directly from his mean and despotic father, a loveless mother, and a military school education that supported and developed his personality as a top-dog abuser.

Trump embodies the classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful and punitive. ~ Amanda Taub

Despot’s Apprentice

According to Brian Klass (The Despot’s Apprentice: Donald Trump’s Attack on Democracy), our exiting President checked all the boxes in the despot’s playbook:

  • Scapegoated minorities
  • Attacked the press
  • Put cronies in a position of power
  • Promoted outright nepotism
  • Used office for personal economic gain
  • Spread misinformation about opponents
  • Called for the jailing of opponents
  • Did not agree to a peaceful transfer of power
The Authoritarian Personality

Since WWII, many social scientists sought to understand the psychology that gave the world Hitler. Drawing from that research, psychologist Robert Altemeyer devised a concept called ring-wing authoritarianism and created a short survey instrument (RWA) to measure it. The RWA is the most widely used assessment of the authoritarian personality.

Altemeyer’s research found four strongly held beliefs and behaviors that characterize the authoritarian personality:

  1. submission to authorities
  2. conforming to social conventions and rules perceived to be endorsed by society
  3. aggressiveness directed against persons perceived to be sanctioned by authorities
  4. general aggression against outsiders
“Stomping Out the Rot”

Using the RWA in 2019, Monmouth University Polling Institute found that the stronger the Trump supporter, the higher the person scored on the RWA. People strongly disapproving of Trump scored 54, while those who supported him had an average score of 119, more than twice as authoritarian as Trump opponents.

In the Monmouth poll, over half of Trump’s supporters agreed with the statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” This authoritarian aggression is a central part of the RWA personality.

Authoritarian Nightmare

In their book, Authoritarian Nightmare (2020), John Dean and Altemeyer analyzed data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey that showed a desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters. Altemeyer and Dean described Trump supporters as “submissive, fearful, and longing for a mighty leader who will protect them from life’s threats.” They found shockingly high levels of anti-democratic beliefs and prejudicial attitudes among Trump backers, concluding: “Trump supporters will be a potent pro-authoritarian voting bloc in the years to come. Even if Donald Trump disappeared tomorrow, the millions of people who made him president would be ready to make someone else similar president instead.”

Allegiance to Leader – Animus to Outsider

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) indicates passive deference to authoritarian leaders. SDO indicates a willingness to target outside groups. These two psychological motivations will often, if not always, be in synch with another. Like SDO, RWA is associated with xenophobia, being closed to experience, and political conservatism.

These two constructs reflect survival strategies underlying the conservative political stance: targeting outsiders (SDO) while following authorities who protect them against an external threat (RWA).

Rise of American Authoritarianism — We Saw This Coming

An amazingly prescient piece about authoritarianism in America appeared in Vox, on March 1, 2016 (written by Amanda Taub). Donald Trump had not yet won the Republican nomination for President but political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists were convening behind the scenes with alarm — like astronomers from separate observatories who finally resigned themselves to the reality that a comet was heading toward earth. A 2016 exit poll out of South Carolina had found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States; another poll found a third of Trump supporters were in favor of banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln should not have freed the slaves.

GOP Attracted the Authoritarians

In their book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics (2009), Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler predicted Trump’s rise. They concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.

“Whatever Action Is Necessary”

While at the University of Massachusetts, Mathew MacWilliams did his dissertation on the authoritarian psychological profile (of followers, not dictators). MacWilliams found that when these followers feel threatened, they look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action is necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear. This was a survival-based response to xenophobic overload.

How Many Are There?

Pollster Kyle Dropp of Morning Consult found that 44% of white respondents nationwide scored high or very high on his authoritarian survey questions. More than 65 percent of people who scored highest on authoritarianism were GOP voters. At the other end of the scale, the pattern reversed. People who scored low on authoritarianism were 75 percent Democrats.

The size of this new constituency in the U.S. is now bigger because of Trump, or at least more toxic and dangerous. They are fueled by continuing threats of social change and an out-of-control social media that activates latent authoritarianism by selling threat from outsiders.

“Sliding” into Authoritarianism

 The “slide” from conservatism into authoritarianism takes:

  • a despotic, authoritarian, rhetorically clever leader
  • continued economic displacement and social-cultural change, and
  • a degraded media and informational ecosystem that amplifies the feeling of threat and “activates” authoritarian impulses.
“Activating” Authoritarians

According to researcher Karen Stenner (The Authoritarian Dynamic, 2005), there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies that can be triggered or “activated” by the perception of physical threat or by destabilizing social change. What might look on the surface like bigotry, Stenner suggests, is really more of a generic susceptibility to messages about any group identified as objects of concern. Returning to Altemeyer’s research above, this illustrates aggressiveness directed against persons sanctioned by “authorities” such as Trump, Twitter, and Fox News.

Action-side of Authoritarians

“Whatever action is necessary” looks like a plot to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. It looks like a “Trump train” bearing flags and banners, swarming around a Biden-Harris campaign bus on a stretch of I-35 in Hays County, Texas. Trump joked about this on the campaign trail and gleefully criticized the FBI for wanting to investigate. Trump-supporter caravans also blocked traffic in New Jersey and New York. The Republican convention provided a prominent speaking slot to a white couple from St. Louis who face felony charges for brandishing guns at racial-justice protestors. According to authoritarian researcher Stanley Feldman, it is the scale of the desired responses, the action side that most distinguishes authoritarians from the rest of Republicans.

Authoritarians Will Still Be Here

What Amanda Taub (Vox) said in 2016 looks even more true four years later: “If Trump loses the election, that won’t remove the threats and social changes that triggered the ‘action side’ of authoritarianism. The authoritarians will still be here. They are a real constituency that exists independently of Trump. They will look for candidates who will give them the strong, punitive leadership they desire. And that means Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politics, with potentially profound implications for the country.”

Authoritarianism and Masculine Identity

Conservative columnist and Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Mona Charen, asked on November 7, 2020, “what does this election tell us?” One of her answers pointed to masculine identity:

There is a problem with masculinity in this country. The gender gap is now a chasm; we need to think more deeply about how we are raising men.

Dark Triad and Male Identity Anxiety

Authoritarian followership includes a heavy dose of male identity anxiety, perceived threat from outsiders, and a willingness to act-out to defend “territory” and unconsciously, defend access to mating opportunities. Trump is macho by design (developmentally and genetically) and embodies the “dark triad” personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathology. Trump’s attention-seeking narcissism is perfect fuel for finding and encouraging male followers who feel a threat to their manhood.

Losers in the Mating Game

In a prior post (Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference), I explain the “reproductive variance” between men and women throughout our evolutionary history: essentially, compared to women, most men do not reproduce — they are losers in the mating game. As proven by DNA studies, most authoritarian men in human history were sexually prolific. This dynamic — the fact of winner-take-all sexual access, is relevant to the discussion of the male identity crisis that looms in the underbelly of the male authoritarian personality and fuels its xenophobia and grievances.

“Young Male Syndrome” Around the World

Young men often enter mate competition with fewer resources to offer woman, what behavior ecologists call “embodied capital.” When young men face the peril of being shut out of the mating game, violent risk-taking has been an evolutionarily sensible strategy. Today, risk-taking and antisocial behaviors are strongly associated with being young and male across societies world-wide and men at their reproductive peak tend to be most inclined to violence, a phenomenon known as young male syndrome.*

These Boys Are More Angry Than Proud

The Proud Boys are a far-right, neo-fascist, male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence. They feature “action-oriented” authoritarianism, white male grievance, and sexual control of women.

Proud Boys believe that men, especially white men, and Western culture are under siege. They officially reject white supremacy although members have participated in racist events. The name is derived from the song “Proud of Your Boy” from the musical adaptation of Disney’s film Aladdin. In the song, Aladdin apologizes to his mother for being a bad son and promises to make her proud. Proud Boys founder, Gavin McInnes, says the song is about Aladdin apologizing for being a boy. Proud Boys purportedly recruit right-wing, 15-30-year-old white males from the suburbs or exurbs.

Hispanic Men Looking for the Tough Guy

In the 2020 presidential election, Trump made inroads with Hispanic men in Texas and Florida. Former Texas Representative Jason Villalba says Trump’s macho image really resonated with Latino men in Texas who are focused on being strong and tough in the face of adversity.

University of Texas professor Eric McDaniel created a white masculinity threat index that measures the extent to which people believe that white males have become a discriminated-against group. McDaniel found that Hispanic men were more likely than white women, Hispanic women, or Black men, to believe that whites and men were discriminated against at higher rates than Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays, and people who identify as transgender. Only white men scored higher than Hispanic men on the index, suggesting an affinity (identity) between Hispanic and white men that might explain the durability of Trump’s appeal.

Trump As Folk Hero

Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild (The Atlantic, October 29) said that many white men feel their gender and race have been vilified. Their economic prospects are bad and the American culture tells them that their gender is also bad. So they have turned to Trump as a type of folk hero, one who can restore their former glory. Exposing themselves and others to the coronavirus is part of that heroism. One male Trump supporter told Hochschild, “Trump is willing to accept risk to win for the American people and Joe Biden is sitting in his basement.”

Subjective Truth: They’re Cutting In Line

For her 2016 book, Strangers in their Own Land, Hochschild interviewed folks in Louisiana and found their “deep story,” the emotional feels-as-if truth of their lives. She heard the metaphor of a long line of Americans standing on a hill, waiting to get to the top — to the American dream. But as they stand there, tired and eager, they see certain people are cutting the line in front of them. They see women, African Americans, and immigrants getting ahead, boosted by the government and its affirmative-action programs.

Many white men, in particular, feel “shoved back in line,” she writes. Unable to draw confidence from their mostly nonexistent wealth, or their jobs which are steadily moving offshore, they turn to their pride in being American, she said.

Identity Politics for White Men

Trump has allowed his male supporters to feel like “moral” Americans and superior to those they consider “other” or beneath them. Trump may not always represent his supporters’ economic self-interest, but he feels their emotional self-interest. Hochschild asserts “Trump is, in essence, the identity politics candidate for white men.”

In Search of the Lost Heroic

Men in this community, she said, are starved for a sense of heroism. They don’t feel good about themselves. Confronting the coronavirus is a way to show stoicism and to feel heroic again. Hochschild’s subjects think they can handle the virus just like Trump handles everything. “He’s kind of a bad boy, and they relate to that.” A Trump supporter from McKinney, Texas said, “the president comes off as a man; he doesn’t come off as weak.”

Degradation of Our Information Culture

Fake news consumption has tripled since 2016 according to a study by the German Marshall Fund. Facebook is a much greater vehicle for disinformation today and that information is tailored to increase attention for a specific user in a way that is pernicious and destructive to the rational processing of facts. US demand for news that is either distorted or plain false continues to grow – such as news about the pandemic or QAnon conspiracy theories.

Post-media Rhetoric – “Twitter Dee and Twitter Dumb”

In her recent book, Demagogue for President: the Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump, Jennifer Mercieca explains how Trump ran as a dangerous demagogue and also a heroic demagogue. Trump used rhetorical strategies to polarize, delegitimize, and demonize but also strategies to bring people “closer.” (Each strategy, with its Latin name, has been observed throughout history.)

Mercieca says Trump was the first true “post-media rhetorical presidency.” Even though he relied dramatically on Fox News, he had the ability to go directly to the people and around the media via Twitter. These rhetorical strategies were particularly effective with the authoritarian personality.

What’s the Matter with Kansas Redux

As described in Thomas Frank’s book in 2004 (What’s the Matter with Kansas?), the white working class abandoned the Democratic party because of cultural arguments related to abortion, guns, religion, and same-sex marriage. Republicans convinced (“it’s the messaging stupid!”) these white voters that cultural arguments were more important than their dire economic circumstances. Then Republicans governed with a bait and switch. They delivered a conservative economic agenda (except for fiscal responsibility), cutting taxes on the wealthy, undoing business regulations, and undermining the social safety net that actually hurt these working-class voters.

Working-class Republicans?

There have been some claims (Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker and columnist David Brooks) that the 2020 election revealed a potential multiracial working-class Republican party. I don’t buy it, at least not as it relates to actual working-class policies. Thomas Frank’s analysis still rings true. Yes, Trump supporters and authoritarians are decidedly populist and anti-elitist (though who is elitist changes to fit the rhetorical moment). But authoritarians don’t think much about organized labor. Working-class people voted for Trump based upon other appeals — anti-socialist propaganda, racist xenophobia, and outright machoism. If they stay with the Republican party, they are in for more bait and switch as it relates to their social and economic well-being. Trumpism is populist nationalism with a high dose of white grievance. This is more identity politics than is practiced on the Left.

Epilogue – First Step Toward Healing

While this post is a cautionary note about the nation’s political divide and a recognition of the challenges presented by so many authoritarian-leaning Americans citizens, let it be clearly proclaimed: Americans have chosen a next President who is the polar opposite of a despot and bully. Americans have fired a narcissist and hired a man with an extraordinary capacity for empathy. If Donald Trump was the authoritarian “infection,” Americans have just course-corrected with a powerful “antibiotic” — a first step toward healing.

My last post in this series will present a way forward to understand the moral foundations of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, and a possible way to acknowledge what is held sacred by those who affiliate with each of those political orientations.

References

*Margo Wilson and Martin Daly, “Competitiveness, Risk Taking and Violence: the Young Male Syndrome” Ethology and Sociobiology, 6 no.1, (Jan. 1985) p. 230

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 More Men Than Women Die of COVID-19

Why More Men Than Women Die of COVID-19

by | Apr 7, 2020 | Biological Difference, Men's Issues, Women's Issues

“There are profound sex differences in immune systems and this pandemic is revealing them.”
Marcia Stefanick, Stanford University School of Medicine.

More men than women have died of the COVID-19 virus. In China, Italy, South Korea, Germany, France, Iran, the U.S – everywhere around the world, the death rate of men to women is disproportionate. In New York City, men have died at nearly twice the rate.

Death rates from COVID-19 are more evidence of the biological differences between men and women. What are the components of these differences related to the pandemic?

Habits and Comorbidity

Questions about the sex discrepancy in death rates have focused (heretofore) mostly on male behavior: higher rates of tobacco assumption, reluctance to seek medical care, and even lower rates of handwashing.

Smoking is associated with negative progression and adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Smokers are more likely to have lung disease, which is a risk factor for severe infection. Also, smokers are more likely to touch their mouths and face.

But, Sabra Klein, Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at John Hopkins* suggests that smoking is not the leading factor. “There is a growing observation of increased mortality in men across very diverse countries and cultures. When I see that, it makes me think that there must be something universal that is contributing to this.” Klein’s prior research revealed that men have lower innate antiviral immune responses to a range of infections including hepatitis C and HIV. “Their immune system may not initiate an appropriate response when it initially sees the virus.”

Men also have other “comorbidities”: higher rates of pre-existing conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. These conditions increase the risk of death from the virus.

Kathryn Sandberg, Director of the Center for the Study of Sex Differences in Health, Aging and Disease at Georgetown University, says one explanation for the disparity in COVID-19 deaths may have to do with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a protein on the surface of the cells in the lungs and other organs. ACE2 is key in regulating blood pressure and it works differently and more favorably for women. COVID-19 binds to ACE2. A study of COVID-19 patients in China found hypertension as the most common risk factor.

Overall Differences in Male and Female Lifespan and Risk of Death

We did not need a pandemic to know men live (on average) 4 years less than women; male suicide rates are much higher; significantly more men die at work and in war. We know men aged 15-25 have a vastly greater risk of injury and death. Evolutionary psychology speaks volumes about the reasons for the risky behavior of men vs. women. (It is related to androgens and mating behavior.)

In the context of a pandemic, it makes sense to remember those markers of health and longevity, but also to look deeper for underlying biological causes.

When it Comes to Survival, Men are the Weaker Sex.

Men are the weaker sex independent of a pandemic; the innate biological advantage of women is apparent at every age and stage of human life. Baby girls are more likely to make it to their first birthday. Eighty percent of all centenarians today are women; ninety-five percent of those who reach the age of 110 are women.

Female survival advantage holds regardless of education, economic factors, and alcohol, drug, or tobacco consumption.

Sandberg underscores the bottom-line: “It doesn’t matter what the infectious agent is, women tend to be better at knocking it down because they have a more robust immune system.”

Genetic Disadvantage for Males and Female Immunity

Female genetic superiority starts at the chromosomal level. The cells of genetic females have two X chromosomes. Having the use of a spare X chromosome gives females an advantage against a virus.

There are more than 2,000 genes on the two X chromosomes that interact and cooperate within a women’s body. Each cell predominantly uses one X chromosome over the other. According to physician and scientist, Sharon Moaelm*, if one X chromosome has genes that better recognize an invading virus like COVID-19, the other X chromosome that can do a different task – like killing cells infected with COVID -19. This makes the fight against the virus more efficient for women. An extra X brings extra immune functioning.

Males have to get by with just one X chromosome. If a male’s genes are not capable of recognizing or killing cells infected with the coronavirus, his ability to fight the infection will be limited. Historically, coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS tended to affect men disproportionately, according to Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, infectious disease specialist at McGovern Medical School at UTHealth in Texas.

Since women have a greater immune response to the virus, they are quicker to reduce its viral load – the quantity of the virus. Women may also be able to launch an earlier attack on infections in general, saving the body from needing to use all of its virus-fighting capacity later.

It should be noted that women pay a cost for having a more aggressive immune system. Women are more prone to autoimmune diseases. The immune system of genetic females is more likely to attack themselves, which occurs in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjogren’s syndrome, and lupus.

Hormonal Disadvantage for Males and Advantage for Females

Higher levels of testosterone appear to suppress the immune system. Estrogens have been found to stimulate a more vigorous immune response.

From an evolutionary perspective, some research suggests women have a stronger immune system against viral infections than men because they spend part of their lives with a “foreign body” inside of them; their baby grants them a survival advantage. Ostrosky-Zeichner believes that advantage may be related to hormonal changes.

Going Forward with Tests and Vaccine

A better understanding of men’s and women’s immune system response to the virus could be critical in developing a good vaccine. There are well-documented differences in vaccine effectiveness among men and women, with women tending to be better protected after vaccination. Therefore, it may be especially important to ensure that sex is taken into account when designing and analyzing vaccine trials.

And, as we develop antibody testing, what are the differences in the antibodies produced in men vs. women? Should the test be gender-specific? Sex differences in the immune response to COVID-19 are likely to show up in antibody surveys currently underway across the world.

Conclusion

Knowing more about how the virus differently impacts men and women could help determine the most effective treatment for individual patients. Nearly 20 years ago, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences published a report that claimed: “Being male or female is an important variable that should be considered.”

Moalem claims there has been little tangible progress on this insight in the practice of medicine. “We must now apprehend the real biological strength that each genetic female possesses and how men differ in this regard. The future of medicine depends upon it.”

*Sabra Klein is also President of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences (OSSD).

**Sharon Moalem is a scientist, physician, and author. His most recent book is The Better Half: On the Genetic Superiority of Women. Moalem is an expert in the fields of rare diseases, sex differentiation, neurogenetics, and biotechnology.

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

Can We Be Honest About Women?

Can We Be Honest About Women?

by | Mar 24, 2020 | Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Women's Issues

In 2017, David French of the National Review wrote an article stating that men enter high-status professions and achieve wealth in part, or even primarily, to gain access to beautiful women. D.C. McAllister responded to French with her own analysis, “Can We Be Honest About Women?” in The Federalist (Dec.12, 2017).  She countered French by saying many men enter high-status professions in order to best other men in their field of expertise, not just to get beautiful women.  McAllister said competition can fuel men even more than sex.  Here, McAllister misunderstands cause and effect, ends, and means.  She misunderstands the underlying reason for male status aspiration and male competition.  At the most primal level of evolutionary adaptation, male competition is only about sex.

Woman Collude For Their Own Benefit

Most importantly, McAllister’s piece in The Federalist took issue with the assumption that women are passive and innocent in this situation. She spelled out basic truths about women that created ire among her feminist detractors.  David French asked what is wrong with men.   Rather than posit that men are wrong, McAllister correctly asserted that women “naturally” collude with men for their own benefit. Further, McAllister courageously proffered “we can’t always assume women are hapless damsels in distress horrified by how they’re objectified.   Women love the sexual interplay they experience with men, and they relish men desiring their beauty.  Why?   Because it is part of their nature.”

Citing a Pews Research study entitled, “On Gender Differences, No Consensus on Nature vs. Nurture,” McAllister noted that Americans valued physical attractiveness in women more than other traits.  Nurturing and empathy were second.  The traits most valued in men were morality and professional success.   Men want women who are attractive and emotionally sensitive, and women want good men who are financially successful.  (Zsa Zsa Gabor famously asked: “I want a man who’s kind and understanding.  Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?”)

Men are Drawn to Beauty Like Moths to a Flame

This is human nature.  McAllister aptly opined, “men are drawn to beauty like moths to a flame, and women want to be the flame.”  Beauty is a source of power, a woman’s “erotic” or sexual power.

“When men are being their sexual selves, drawn to a woman’s beauty, they’re not exploiting women, they are responding to them.”   McAllister continued, “let men love a woman’s beauty and let a woman delight in a man’s competence and success.  This is part of the dance between the masculine and the feminine, and we would be miserable if we stopped it.”  McAllister quoted James Joyce in “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” and cited an earlier analog in the Bible’s, “Song of Solomon.”  Adoration of female beauty is archetypal and mythic.  Most heterosexual women want to be desired and acknowledged for their physical beauty.   Can we be honest about that?   This is McAllister’s central point.  The fact that women want to be (and should be) acknowledged for their character and skills is entirely beside the point to this biological truth.

Women are Attracted to Economic Power and Men Will Produce It

McAllister inadvertently identified insights from evolutionary psychology and mate selection science.  She revealed the perennial erotic-economic bargain: the provision of resources (providing and protecting) for sexual access given in return — granting access to female beauty with its inherent signaling of fertility.   Thus, women are inextricably attracted to “economic” power, and men will compete and even conspire to produce it.   That is a fundamental biological and evolutionary truth.  It has been a successful adaptation for thousands of years.

All Male Behavior is a Response to Female Choice

All male behavior is etiologically a response to female choice in mate selection. Erotic power is “first cause” and reigns supreme because it is the power that sustains and populates the human race.  Male status aspiration and power displays are a result of adaptive success in attracting women.  So-called “trophy wives,” or “a beautiful woman on a man’s arm,” are mostly for the sheer pleasure of being next to “the flame” of female radiance.   They are the reward, the raison d’etre.   Men want a beautiful woman on their arm in the spirit of Lord Byron (She Walks in Beauty) and James Joyce.  To the degree this is a status display, it is meant (mostly below awareness) to elicit the response of the next woman.  The goal is more sexual access.  Status is the means.   The current woman and the next woman demonstrate the result of male status.

Power acquisition is an evolutionary adaptation for sexual access to women, but this power can be abused.   David French wrote derisively about men, lamenting sexual harassment in media, politics, and entertainment.   McAllister, to her credit, admitted that this male power, while sometimes off the rails, is also desired by women.   And a women’s beauty is part of the ancient agreement.  As Mae West once said, “it is better to be looked over, than over-looked.”

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