Why Do Some Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology?

Why Do Some Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology?

by | Aug 9, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues

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

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

 

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

So, why do some feminists oppose evolutionary psychology?

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

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

Support of Feminist Political Objectives

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

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

I realize feminism can mean many things.

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

Aggregate Differences Between Men and Women

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

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

Inequities Will Not Be Rectified by Denying Difference

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

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

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

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

Seven Reasons Why Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology

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

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

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

Evolutionary psychology explicitly identifies how nature and nurture work together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex work by women is historically ubiquitous.

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

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

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

Feminists commonly deny the operation of erotic capital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embracing Differences Empowers Both Women and Men

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

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

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

Epilogue: The Political Moment

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Sperm Are Cheap – Eggs Are Expensive

by | Jul 13, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Uncategorized

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

 

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

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

Promiscuity Assertions Hurt Women More Than Men.

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

Darwin Revisited

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

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

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

Women Are More Choosey – Full Stop

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

Women Are Just Not as Promiscuous as Men

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

Women Do Have More Opportunity

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

Rates of Infidelity and Number of Affairs

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

Numbers on the Bed Post

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

Ten Partners or One Partner Ten times?

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

Male Overestimation and Over-perception Bias

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

The Difference in Reporting Numbers of Sex Partners Has Four Causes

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

Most Importantly!

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

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

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

Reproductive Variance

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

More Mothers Than Fathers Throughout History

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

College Dating Environment – Slightly Better Deal for the Average Guy

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

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

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

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

Male Promiscuity Can Negatively Affect Genetic Legacy

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

Will Not Debate Bateman’s Principle Here*

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

The Coolidge Effect** Is Real

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

The Honeymoon Effect

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

Honeymoon Effect Coexists with Coolidge

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

What is Beccia’s Beef – Really?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Gamma Bias: Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Gender

by | Mar 3, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects of Gamma Bias on Men and Women 

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

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

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

The Four Judgments Operate Independently

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

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

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

Gamma Bias is Pernicious – Let’s Do Better

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

 

Notes:

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

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

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
What Am I Made For? Barbie Goes Beyond The Battle of the Sexes

What Am I Made For? Barbie Goes Beyond The Battle of the Sexes

by | Sep 3, 2023 | Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Women's Issues

“I don’t know how to feel, but I wanna try.”
~ Barbie speaks through Billie Eilish

At the end of the movie Barbie, Ruth Handler (creator of Barbie) tells Barbie: “You should not take this leap into the real world unless you know what this means.”

Ruth gently holds Barbie’s hands. She asks Barbie to close her eyes and feel, and Barbie sees images of girls and women of various ages. She sees (as do we) images of mothers and children embracing, connecting, playing, and bonding. This montage – made from footage that Gerwig sourced from the film’s cast and crew, fills Barbie with emotion as she understands the full scope of womanhood, including birth, childhood, motherhood, and generational love. We see the entire life cycle as a female human being and the expressions of female emotions. It is quite beautiful. Barbie says, “Yes,” she wants this.

“I Don’t Know How to Feel, But I Want to Try”

As the video montage runs, the movie is essentially over; it is easy to dismiss or not fully “see” this fleeting black-and-white montage — or truly savor the haunting melody and poignant lyrics of Billie Eilish singing, What Was I Made For? The images are more profound because of this background music. Eilish wrote this song specifically for Barbie in an immersed zone of connection; she channels the critical message at the movie’s end with this chorus: “I don’t know how to feel, but I wanna try. I don’t know how to feel, but someday I might.”

Please watch and listen to the video. (Lyrics in video and in the Appendix.)

 

Barbie Enters the Human World of Mate Selection and Sexuality

Barbieland is asexual and non-maternal; it has no children. The entire film is devoid of young children until the scene with Ruth. When stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) goes to the real world, she owns her sexual reproductive instincts and visits the gynecologist. She enters the real world of mating and dating; Barbie must begin to swim in the streams of heterosexual dynamics with men.

Sexual Reproduction and Motherhood Are Aspirational

The real-world “Kens” come fully equipped, and they do know (unlike Kens in Barbieland) why they might want to sleep over with Barbie. This is the world that Barbie must navigate to fulfill Ruth’s assertion and promise. Sexual reproduction and motherhood are included in the mix of aspirations for Barbies to be anything they want to be.

Gerwig and Motherhood

During the writing of Barbie, Greta Gerwig was nursing and attending to her new baby boy, Harold, with partner Noah Baumbach. Gerwig and Baumbach had another baby boy in March 2023. So, two kids were on the Barbie promotion circuit under the watchful eye of their mother. Suffice to say, being a mother is one crucial element of Gerwig’s personality. Mattel discontinued Pregnant Barbie, but Gerwig had not lost sight of this part of the female experience, even though there is no maternal instinct in Barbieland. (Gloria and Sasha represent a central mother-daughter plot in the real world.)

Feminism Includes Motherhood

Gerwig is undoubtedly not endorsing a return to 1950s motherhood – being a wife and stay-at-home mother (often pregnant). Gerwig’s feminism includes maternity as an option. It is part of the natural order for many women, even women with creative, full-time careers.
“In creating Barbie,” Ruth Handler explained, “my philosophy was that, through the doll, girls could become anything they wanted to be. Barbie has always represented a woman who chooses for herself.”

Barbies Do Not Have an Ending, But Humans Do

Ruth tells Barbie: “Humans only have one ending. Ideas live forever.” Barbie accepts that she will die. Barbie says “yes” to entering the real world because the experience of human emotion is what we are made for.

Old Woman on A Bench

In one scene, Barbie sees an old woman on a bench and tells her, “You are beautiful.” The woman says, “Yes, I know.” This is not a commentary on physical attractiveness or even the inner beauty of older people; it is an endorsement of the beauty of the full spectrum of human experience.

Barbie Wants to Imagine as Subject, Not Object

“I want to be the one imagining, not the idea.”

When Barbie decides whether to return to a worry-free life or experience humanity (the opposite), she says, “I want to be the one imagining, not the idea.” Barbie’s desire to be subject, not object, is a longing felt by human women whose worth in society is often measured by how aesthetically pleasing they are to men. (Many women have a place in their sexuality for being “object,” but that is another topic.) Barbie would be more objectified in the real world than in Barbieland, so why does she want to be human?

Female Emotion as a Strength

The reason to be human is the exaltation of feeling the range of human emotions, especially as a woman. The ending to Barbie shows women’s emotions as a strength, not a weakness. A central thesis of Barbie may be that emotion isn’t just an accessory to the human experience – it plays a vital role in making the human experience worthwhile.

Barbie Wants the Human Experience – She Wants “Ubuntu”

“Ubuntu” is a South African term popularized by Desmond Tuto. Ubuntu means “I am what I am because of who we all are.” You cannot exist as a human being in isolation. We are interconnected. People are not people without other people.

We Even Need People We Have Never Met

 Barbie experiences memories of people she has never met, but that’s the whole point: We don’t have to know the women in the montage to resonate with them. Female moviegoers across the globe connected to this scene in ineffable ways – they cried together, not always knowing why they were sad or moved. (Men cried too, empathizing with the spirituality of the human experience, longing for their mother, or even longing for their father and a similar intergenerational bond between boys and men.)

The Infinite Chain

The essence of womanhood and humanity has nothing to do with careers or pink outfits. By taking Ruth’s hand, Barbie becomes another link in an infinite chain of mothers and children. She glimpses a sweet intergenerational heritage of beings incarnated as Homo sapiens — an experience not available to her as a fictional construct. Barbie feels a spiritual connection between generations of women, passing down their hopes and dreams for a better world. Barbie becomes human.

Now She is Barbara Handler

Final scene: Barbie walks up to a reception desk (in her pink Birkenstock sandals) and says: “I’m here to see my gynecologist.” Barbie is now “Barbara” and part of the legacy of female creation and personhood. She’s a Handler now, like Ruth.

Barbie’s Transition: Maslow’s Hierarchy and Attachment Bond

Briefly shifting gears, please allow me to connect Barbie to psychological theory. You might be familiar with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow believed that we begin life by trying to satisfy physiological and social motives (love, belonging, and esteem /respect), which he viewed as deficiency needs. If you fulfill those deficiency needs, you can move on to growth needs; the highest level is self-actualization. Maslow’s work was done before the modern integration of evolutionary biology and psychology, so he gave no attention to the central Darwinian themes of reproduction. Maslow gave incomplete attention to one of the essential elements of Barbie’s transition — the preeminence of the attachment bond between mothers and children.

Barbie and the New Hierarchy of Human Motivations

After studying the evolutionary psychology of human motives for 20 years, psychologist and researcher Douglas Kenrick (Solving Modern Problems with a Stone-Age Brain) updated Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to reflect developments in the behavioral and biological sciences. Self-actualization was removed from its hallowed place at the top.

Finding Mates, Retaining Mates, and Parenting

The new hierarchy of human motives addresses the missing goal that is paramount from a Darwinian perspective, adding three more layers associated with reproduction: finding mates, retaining mates, and parenting. In this new model, the seven human needs or motivations are not stacked on top of one another but are seen as overlapping. Yet, Kenrick suggested that kin care, or parenting, is the ultimate goal of humanity.

What Was I Made For?

According to Kenrick, if you have young children, parenting motives become increasingly linked to your sense of self-actualization and meaning in life. Cue the Barbie movie montage of women, relationships, and human emotions. Cue the Billie Eilish song. This answers Barbie’s question: what was I made for? You were made for acquiring a mate, retaining a mate, and taking care of your family (and the families of all women) with all its attendant joys and pathos. Ruth holds Barbie’s hands and shows her that this is what it means to take the leap from Barbieland into the real world of humanity.

Postscript: What I Left Unsaid About Barbie (related to the film’s message, not its production)

This post and my last post on Barbie (Unpacking Barbie’s Apotheosis – Which Complaints Hold Up Under Scrutiny?) can be seen as bookends in tone: embracing and honoring the human-female experience vs. a detailed critique of Barbie’s central feminist message. But there is a lot left on the table to talk about; I just choose to move on.

Left unsaid and not fully discussed by me:

  • Barbie’s misandry (the movie is anti-male on the surface): no men in Barbieland or in the real world have any redeeming qualities. They are portrayed as silly, stupid buffoons — superfluous for the most part and oddly attached to horses. (Allen is a special case that does not disprove the point.)
  • After the Barbies retook Barbieland, it was close to an apartheid state for men. Men will have no voice or real representation — less representation than women in the real world. (It is unclear if the Kens get places to live.)
  • Barbies use trickery and their erotic power over men to retake Barbieland. They lie to the men when they act interested in what the men are saying or singing. Barbies strategically use jealousy (intra-sexual competition) between the men to cause them to fight one another. (This is of course common in the real world, but it is almost interesting here, given Barbieland is supposedly an asexual environment.)
  • Relatedly, Barbies exploit male fragility; the movie does have relevant things to say about the fragility of men. Kens need a Barbie more than Barbies need a Ken. There is an existential threat to men if they are not sexually acceptable to a woman. Ken: “I only exist within the warmth of your gaze.” And, “Barbie has a great day everyday, but Ken has a great day only if Barbie looks at him.” Ultimately, Ken might be “enough” of a nice guy, but he will not be a suitable sex partner or mate. Barbie is not interested. Full stop.
  • There are perhaps relevant reflections (and reviews to share) about non-binary gender presentation and even implied queer sexual preference in Barbie.
  • There is a rise of bimbo feminism (especially on TikTok) in response to this movie – the combination of hyper-femininity and feminism.
  • There is a message about patriarchy via Mattel’s corporate capitalism windfall.
  • There is a twist on the creation myth: analog to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.
  • There is a possible connection in the Barbie video montage to the alloparenting instinct – pair bonds with fellow female alloparents who help raise children. (see It Takes a Village – Alloparenting and Female Sexual Fluidity.
Final thoughts: Barbie is Allegory and Satire

Given all this, it is important to remember that the movie Barbie is an allegory and satire. Greta Gerwig is a sly filmmaker. As the marketing promotion said: if you love Barbie, you will love this movie. If you hate Barbie, you will love this movie. But you might hate this movie in both cases. Not me. I was intrigued and stimulated more than I wanted to be. I cannot hate that.

Appendix

What Was I Made for – Lyrics by Billie Eilish

I used to float, now I just fall down
I used to know but I’m not sure now
What I was made for
What was I made for?

Takin’ a drive, I was an ideal
Looked so alive, turns out I’m not real
Just something you paid for
What was I made for?

(Chorus)

‘Cause I, ’cause I
I don’t know how to feel
But I wanna try
I don’t know how to feel
But someday I might
Someday I might

When did it end? All the enjoyment
I’m sad again, don’t tell my boyfriend
It’s not what he’s made for
What was I made for?

‘Cause I, ’cause I
I don’t know how to feel
But I wanna try
I don’t know how to feel
But someday I might
Someday I might

Think I forgot how to be happy
Something I’m not, but something I can be
Something I wait for
Something I’m made for
Something I’m made for

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Unpacking the Barbie Apotheosis – Which Complaints Hold Up Under Scrutiny?

Unpacking the Barbie Apotheosis – Which Complaints Hold Up Under Scrutiny?

by | Aug 20, 2023 | Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues, Women's Issues

“It is literally impossible to be a woman.”
~ Gloria, Mattel Executive

 

One moment in Barbie has become a rallying cry for women. Across social media, women have said the speech given by America Ferrera’s character, Gloria (a Mattel executive), perfectly articulates the silent expectations and challenges they face under patriarchy. After the monologue concluded, applause and howls erupted from my Austin audience and reportedly from audiences around the country.

Ferrera told Vanity Fair that the scene took two days and between 30 to 50 takes. Obviously, director Greta Gerwig wanted to get this right. This speech may be her apotheosis – the main message of the movie. (See full text of the speech in Appendix below.)

Gloria’s rant appears to have no satirical intent (unlike much of the movie). Gerwig is playing it straight. She believes these complaints, expectations, and double binds are true for women and are primarily imposed or entirely imposed by men or the patriarchy – even if, it seems, other women are also involved in creating or upholding them. (A double bind is a situation where you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and usually damned if you talk about it.)

Set Up for the “Impossibility of Being a Woman” Speech

After Barbie returns to Barbieland with Gloria and her daughter Sasha, she is devasted to find the Kens have taken over and (somehow) brainwashed the rest of the Barbies. Barbie sobs, telling Gloria that she feels she’ll never be good enough. Gloria then launches into a monologue outlining the contradictions and challenges suffered by womanhood.

Gloria’s Real-Life Struggles?

There is no depiction of Gloria’s real-life struggles in the movie. Does she have problems with discrimination at work? Abuse by her husband? Pay discrepancy? Marriage problems? Her sadness is the root of Barbie’s sadness, yet what is the source of her sadness? What are the transgressions of the patriarchy — the actual examples of her subjugation specifically? We get none of that. We know Gloria has a parent-daughter issue. Gerwig said in one interview that Barbie is mostly a film about a mother-daughter conflict. (Gerwig said many different things, as does the movie.)

Twelve “Complaints” by Women in Barbie

1. Body shape and being thin

“You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin.”

Women carry the burden of needing to be physically attractive to be desired as a mate. Physical features signal fertility: waist-to-hip ratio, lower back curvature, and facial and body symmetry. “Thin” generally means a waist-to-hip ratio of around .7 or .8. If a woman has a large waist and belly fat, she would not be considered sexually desirable because she would be perceived as less fertile. Women have babies; men do not. Fertility matters for women in the science of attraction. This is the basic biology of sexual reproduction. (Stereotypical Barbie was definitely thin; “curvy” Barbie, introduced in 2016, was heavier but still had close to a .7 waist-to-hip ratio.)

But Is There a Double Bind?

How many men say to women, “please be thin, but not too thin?” How often do men commonly rebuke women for saying they want to be thin? Hmm. I am skeptical about the frequency of this.

Thinness is a definite requirement (burden) for women and a possible double bind.

2. Need to have money but never ask for money

“You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that is crass.”

Going to have to call “poppycock” on this one. Do young women feel they have to have money to be attractive to men? Relative to men, women do not have to have money to be desired. Almost never. In fact, this is an insult to men because of the strong expectation for men to have resources to be datable or marriageable. I am surprised that this was written into the speech. This is not a requirement for women.

Asking for money is considered crass by anyone and everyone. Is it a special burden for women? Well, if they are very reliant on a man for their economic survival, then asking for money can be a burden. More necessary than crass.

Both parts of this complaint seem invalid, but “having to have money” does not comport with heterosexual mating and sexual psychology or with dating survey data.

3. Leadership 1 and 2

#1: “You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean.”

This is the most legitimate of the double binds listed. I wrote a blog post on this: Double Binds for Women in Leadership.” I noted the case of Carol Moseley-Braun, comments about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and especially the case of Hillary Clinton. I cited a Pew Research Center study of 2017 on the biases women face, additional research on gender stereotypes, and the “three predicaments” identified by Catalyst, an organization that supports “workplaces that work for women.”

#2: “You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas.”

This is not really a double bind regarding intelligent leadership (you can and should lead without “squashing”), and it also applies to male leaders. But, going along with the above double bind about meanness, women are probably given less leeway to squash other people’s ideas than men. Men probably can get away with this autocratic style more than women.

4. Motherhood

“You have to be a loving mother but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time.”

Yes, we expect mothers to be loving. No doubt. But who is telling women not to talk about their kids? Men or male partners? Bosses at work? Other women? Other mothers? Other couples or mixed company in social settings?

Is this really a double bind? Isn’t it easy to demonstrate that you are a loving mother without talking about (bragging about) your kids all the time?

5. Be a career person but always look out for other people

“You have to be a career woman, but always be looking out for other people.”

Who or what is putting on this pressure on women to have a career other than the economic reality of being a single breadwinner and head of a household? Most American families need dual incomes to survive. But who is saying that you must have a career? Men? The “patriarchy?” Or just the reality of needing enough income to pay the bills. The “richness” of this so-called unfair expectation is that men REALLY DO have to have a career or a decent job to be considered upright and acceptable.

Working after Work

The second part of this complaint is “always look out for other people.” If “looking out for other people” means that working women must care for their children and also “keep the home afloat” (even though they work 40 or more hours a week), then this is a legitimate complaint. Men generally do not do 50% of the work around the house or equal caretaking of children. Thus, working women have a “second job” when they get home. (But, it is unclear this is what is meant in the speech.)

6. Men’s bad behavior

“You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining.”

This one needs examples. What is the bad behavior, and what does the “answering” look like? Who is pressuring women to do this “answering?” To whom are women answering?

This sounds like a valid part of a woman’s experience. Still, the general public of men, (the holders of the patriarchy) may need some direct feedback and behavioral coaching to correct this. We need to hear these stories/examples. And who is accusing you of complaining? The aforementioned men who behaved badly?

The possibility of a double bind exists with this complaint (with perhaps overtones of gaslighting in extreme cases), but it needs more detail.

7. Being pretty (by itself) and being pretty related to sisterhood

“You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you are supposed to be part of the sisterhood.”

Yes, men want you to be pretty, especially if you are their girlfriend or wife. But “not so pretty?” Perhaps that means — be attractive to me as my partner, but somehow don’t be attractive to other men. Ok, that is a double bind. And if you tempt men who belong to other women, you are not a good “sister.” Fair enough. That is part of the same double bind, although women engage in intrasexual competition and attempt to poach the men of other women.

The Core Belief of the Barbie Apotheosis – the System is Rigged Against Women

8. Acknowledge that the system is rigged, but always be grateful.

“But never forget that the system is rigged. So, find a way to acknowledge that but always be grateful.”

What is meant by the system being rigged? How is the system rigged? Is it an amalgam of patriarchal oppression signified by the aggregate wage gap or the percentages of women in the upper echelon of government and corporations?

Aggregate Wage Gap and Women in C-Suites Do Not Prove Rigging

“Patriarchy” in feminist theory (and in “Barbie) is often associated with the idea of inordinate male power fueled by a malicious intent to hold women down using outright discrimination. But the aggregate wage gap and the percentages of women in government and corporate executive suites do not prove discrimination. That sacred trope of left-feminist politics does not reflect the evidence from economic research. It is a misreading of women’s choices related to academic disciplines, career tracts, and preference to have and raise children. (A complete discussion of this is beyond the scope of this post.)

A Zombie Lie

Bill Maher called Barbie a “zombie lie” in its depiction of patriarchy and a “rigged” system. A zombie lie is a lie that never was true, but certain people refused to stop saying it; or it is something that used to be true but no longer is, even though some people pretend it is still valid. (Like trickle-down economics or an aggregate wage gap caused by discrimination.)

Maher went on to say that “the real Mattel board is pretty close to a mirror of the country where 45% of the 449 board seats filled last year in Fortune 500 companies were women.” Barbie depicts the Mattel board as all men. In reality, it has seven men and five women.

Women Are Part of the System

Barbie seems to believe that there is a patriarchal system that holds down the empowerment and advancement of women and that they have no causal relationship to that system; it’s rigged, and women are not involved or responsible for how the system is constructed. From a perspective of mate selection science, women collude with men and are causal to men running things at the top — because women want to mate with those men.

The Dream Gap and Achievement Gap

This idea of the system being rigged against women ignores the dramatic advantage in achievement (the achievement gap) that girls and women currently have over boys and men in academia and in the careers of millennials and Gen Z Americans. Forbes reported in 2020 that the law reviews of the top 16 law schools in the US all had a female editor-in-chief. That is 16 out of 16!

At my movie theatre in south Austin, a pre-movie ad advocated for closing the “dream gap” for girls. But it is boys who need support in their dreams and achievement in 2023 America. The girls are doing much better than the boys right now. If you want more girls in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), fine. Give them that dream. But they will have to have a natural inclination and want it.

Mattel Has Been in the Girl-Dream Business from the Very Beginning

Mattel has given Barbie 200 different careers since 1959 – including surgeon, dentist, math teacher, judge, architect, aircraft engineer, astronaut, astrophysicist, chemist, microbiologist, robotics engineer, business executive, space scientist, and US President. It is not foolish to say that Barbie has done more than its part to “unrig” the patriarchal system. Barbie was nearly a feminist icon before she found the big screen.

Here is What Rigging Actually Looks Like

If Gerwig had said the following about a rigged system, she would have been correct:

– American corporate culture is rigged against women by not providing paid leave for childbirth, provisions for childcare, and flexible work scheduling. (It is also rigged against men by not allowing paid paternity leave.)

– American capitalism, tax laws, and consumer credit are rigged to advantage the rich and disadvantage the poor and middle class.

– U.S. federal government is run primarily by men who protect the rich, although these men were elected by women as well.

– Presidential political primaries and our electoral college system can rig outcomes against the will of the simple majority.

– American judicial system and legal representation are rigged in favor of the monied class.

– Insurance, drug, and hospital corporations rig American health care to its detriment.

Who is to Blame for the Rigging of Profit Over People?

Is all this “rigging” a patriarchal plot? Perhaps. It is primarily men who make the federal laws and the governing rules inside corporations.

Maybe the corporate capitalistic culture in America is rigged against women because of the lack of a social safety net for the family — like the systems in the social democracies of Europe. Who is to blame for that? Just men? Who is to blame for rigging the American system to value profit over people? Just men? Well maybe. But I don’t think that is made clear by Gerwig. I don’t believe that is what she means by saying the system is rigged. We do not know precisely what she means by rigging the system. Gerwig’s movie is deft with satire and replete with internal contradictions.

Pressure to Acknowledge and Be Grateful?

Assuming that women believe the system is rigged against them, why must they acknowledge that, as asserted in the apotheosis speech? Who is pressuring them to acknowledge that? What is the political motivation for that pressure?

And women are expected to be grateful no matter what? Who says that? Perhaps some men do. But most men in today’s environment do not say that women should be grateful – that has zombie lie written all over it.

9. Never get old, show off, be rude, or selfish, or get out of line

“You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish…… never get out of line.”

Never getting old probably relates to the need to be (stay) pretty, as in #7 above. It is a legitimate “pressure” given the need to attract and keep men as mates.

Never be rude, show off, be selfish, or get out of line, relates to #3 above, the double bind of women as leaders. That is a real double bind. The question is how forceful and pervasive is the request to “never be” (fill in the blank) and who is doing the asking. Is it coming from men?

10. Never fall down, fail, or show fear

“You have to never fall down, never fail, never show fear.”

This expectation feels entirely self-imposed. It totally makes sense for men and the expectations for virile masculinity (what is called the “man box.”) This expectation of men is so pervasive (and women impose this, directly or indirectly) that it feels ironic (and thus irritating) as a complaint from women. Men do not, as a rule, need their women to never fall down, never fail, or never show fear. Those qualities may be great, even attractive, but they do not contribute much to the male desire of women sexually or as partners. If anything, men want the opportunity to catch a woman when she falls . . . men need to be useful and want to do that. This “Barbie” complaint is self-imposed by women on women.

11. You are doing everything wrong. It is all your fault.

“And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.”

Who is saying this to women? In what context? “Everything?” “All?” This assertion needs clarification and evidence. This complaint also seems quite ironic if you consider just how pervasive the memes are that men are toxic, useless, stupid, and unnecessary. Those messages about men are everywhere in print, on the internet, and in many cultural art forms (television shows, commercials, and movies). I would submit that men, not women, are getting the message that “it is all your fault.”

Is it possible that Gerwig is engaging in satirical speech? Or is she shooting it straight with female-centric self-loathing? Women may indeed feel this. (Actually, I suspect they do.) But don’t make it part of the feminist position paper inside this movie unless you put some “meat on the bones” with examples or wink at the audience so they know this is presented tongue-in-cheek.

12. Never being appreciated for all of this

“Nobody gives you a medal or says thank you!”

This is a human failing on both sides of the gender divide. But it is worth noting that Mother’s Day is considered somewhat more important in the United States than Father’s Day as measured by gifting behavior and survey responses.

Conclusion

Women have legit complaints about the need to be pretty, the lack of permission to be angry and mean as a female leader and having to do more than their share of household management. Many of the apotheosis complaints and double binds also exist for men. In fact, the double binds about never failing, and never showing fear are almost exclusively a problem for men and not women. Most importantly, the system is rigged by both men and women to value profit over people and rich over poor — not men over women. Women and girls in 2023 are doing better than men and boys by a significant margin. Barbie perpetuates a “zombie lie” – but the fun is just starting. Stay tuned for my next post about the movie Barbie.

*Apotheosis: the highest point of development of something, the culmination or climax

Appendix: Full text of Gloria’s Apotheosis Monologue

“It is literally impossible to be a woman. You are so beautiful and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow, we’re always doing it wrong. You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that is crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You have to be a loving mother but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining. You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you are supposed to be part of the sisterhood. But always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So, find a way to acknowledge that, but always be grateful. You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It is too contradictory, and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault. I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don’t even know.” (In another part of the movie Gloria also says that women must “always stand out.”)

Author’s Note:

Another Barbie post is coming! I will discuss issues of gender, patriarchy, degree of man-hating (misandry) and Barbieland as an apartheid state, male fragility, male and female sexuality, mate selection and reproduction in the real world vs. Barbieland, and much more.

 

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

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

by | Jul 16, 2023 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Women's Issues

Author’s Note:

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

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

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

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

Preference for Younger Women – the Prostitute Studies

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

Motivations of Men in the Context of Barter and Trade

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

Disapproval of Sex Work and Age-Discrepant Couples

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

Prostitute’s Age and Earnings Research

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

The Price of Younger Prostitutes

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

Universal Biological Constraints on Mate Choice

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

“Revealed Preference” for Choice of Prostitutes

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

Prostitutes of Indonesia

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

Prostitutes Aged 35-40 Earn Much Less

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

An Equation Related to Prostitute’s Earnings

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

Evolution Predicts Similar Results in Other Countries

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

Sex Work Manifestations and Sexual Selection

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

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

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

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

“Sex-Work” Has Direct and Indirect Manifestations

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

One “Possibility” — Men Want to Be Cuddled

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

Is Cuddling Indirect Sex Work?

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

Why Women Have Sex – One Reason Among Many

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

Female Sexuality and Beauty is a Fungible Asset

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

References

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

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

Additional Related Posts

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

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

Why Women Have Sex

Science of Attraction and Beauty

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

 

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