“There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among them is the Mercedes-Benz SL500.” ~ Lynn Lavner

Twenty-two Domains of Difference (See list in Appendix)

This is first in a series of posts that will explain the twenty-two domains of difference between men and women in their sexual psychology and response. (See introduction to the series: Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology and Response.) Differences are based on statistical aggregates of all men and women from authoritative research studies. These are tendencies that apply to the general population of male and female heterosexuals but do predict the unique sexuality of a particular man or woman. It may be instructive, however, to understand our foundational “wiring” – the evolutionary adaptations that remain active in modern human mating. Most of these domains of difference can affect the equilibrium of our relationships.

Behavioral Dynamics in the Mating Economy – Domain #1
This post will explore differences related to:

1. General psychological sex differences in the mating economy (an overview)
2. The influence of money, status, and resources in the mating economy
3. The operation of the mating economy as a market place – the haves and have-nots
4. The nature and influence of the “bargain” of exchange between men and women
5. The psychological difference between the pursuer and the one pursued

General Sex Differences in the Psychology of the Mating Economy:

• Women have the psychology of choice and an abundance of sexual attention during their reproductive years (this is mostly good, but sometimes bad); men mostly do not have choice or an abundance of mating opportunities. Beautiful women have immense choice in the mating economy and rich men have the greatest opportunity to be chosen.
• Men (mostly) have the psychology of sexual scarcity and activation of the sympathetic nervous system as pursuer and competitor with other males.
• Women have the psychology of caution and fear — sexual inhibition and “brakes” on sexual activity and experience of risk. Women fear being physically hurt, left to fend on their own with a child, or suffering reputational damage.
• Women are prone to have regret or guilt about what they did in the sexual and mating realm.
• Men are prone to have guilt and regret about what they did not do. (Lack of courage to initiate toward a woman.)
• Men have fear of humiliation and being rejected. This fear is “existential” in its impact – it evokes the very essence of manhood and worth because it goes to the core of evolution: male sexuality and the passing on of the genetic code. Men’s fear of humiliation is mostly understood by women but the male psychology of existential threat is not acknowledged, understood, or given an empathic ear.
• Men have anger that comes from this threat and the lack of sexual access; there are no easy answers to this in the mating economy. The psychology of the haves and have-nots is ubiquitous across many domains of social life in the West.
• Some women experience their own existential angst related to the need to have a child; this too is encoded into sexual expression. The female sexual “instinct” interfaces with the maternal/care-taking instinct.
• Women also have fear, anger, and grief about being over-looked or no longer being desired by the men that are acceptable to them as mates. This is a loss of “erotic power.”
• Women often experience a significant trade-off problem in their mate selection decision-making between choosing a man of status (financially successful) and choosing a man with a loyal and generous character. Both trait profiles are required. Men do not have this particular trade-off dilemma in their mate selection psychology nor any other trade-off problem as significant as that in their long-term mating strategy. (This will be explored in a future post, Domain #3: Trait Preferences and Priorities in Mate Selection.)
• Men are driven by a spontaneous, initiating sexual psychology (spontaneous desire) and women are characterized by a cautionary, “response desire.” (See Spontaneous and Response Desire – the Underbelly of Heterosexual Mating.) I will explore this in Domain #6: Spontaneous Desire vs. Response Desire.
• Finally, the psychology of the mating economy is haunted by the undertow of the erotic-economic bargain: the exchange of beauty and fertility for resources and protection. The dynamic of this exchange is anchored in the fundamental objectives of human mating strategy and reproduction. In modern times, it is characterized by motivated reasoning used to deny its existence. This is the psychology of collusion, rationalization, and avoidance. The erotic-economic bargain has political implications.

Supply and Demand Forces in the Mating Marketplace
In the human mating economy, men mostly sell and women mostly buy; this is the predominant evolutionary dynamic. The buyer (female chooser) significantly controls the marketplace.

All behaviors of mate selection (intersexual selection by women and intra-sexual competition primarily by men) are driven by supply and demand forces for sexual access to the best (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 in the human population: more women have sex and reproduce in the general population than do men, as shown by genetic studies (see below).

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 in great supply 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 vs. Pursued

The 180% difference between a buyer and a seller in the mating-sexual economy is dramatic in its psychological impact. It affects motivation, 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.

Male intra-sexual competition (men competing against one another) has unique behavioral and psychological dynamics. The psychology of female intersexual selection (preferential mate choice) – the experience of being pursued, is a mixed bag. It can be exhilarating to be adored and desired, until it is not. Women’s intra-sexual competition (women competing against one another) for male attention is a different behavioral phenomenon than male-on-male competition. (I will explore intra-sexual competition in Domain #2: Long-term vs. Short-term Mating Strategies.)

Erotic-Economic Bargain – the Ultimate Exchange in the Mating Economy

The exchange of physical beauty and fertility (erotic power) for economic power (and/or protection) is the perennial bargain of human mating over eons of time. This bargain is rooted in the willingness and capacity for parental (economic) investment from the man and the reproductive (sexual) access allowed by the women in response to that investment.  It is the unconscious infrastructure of heterosexuality.  The ability of a man to protect and provide for children is the key ingredient and evolutionary force driving this mate preference by women; it is the trigger for her sexual availability. Her youth and fertility is her erotic power — a power that controls and influences male aspiration for social dominance, economic power, and competition with other men. Female erotic power fuels the fire of male sexuality. Sexual access to women is the penultimate motivation and prize. The strength of a man’s preference for physically attractive women and a woman’s preference for financially successful men works conjointly in relationship to their mate value. At the upper end of their respective mate value, there is an assortative pairing of the beautiful with the rich.

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

 Foundational Collusion
Although the exchange of sex for resources is a shared agreement, it is often implicit and “secretly” held – that is what is meant by “collusion.” Men and women have vastly different parts to play in holding the agreement in place. This foundational collusion of exchange influences all other pieces of the heterosexual “puzzle.” To be clear, even though the erotic-economic bargain is often not explicit or conscious, it fertilizes (sorry for the pun) the soil of human reproduction.  The erotic-economic bargain is largely “undiscussable.”

Mate Value is the “Currency”

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. Narratives in comedy, television, literature, and film often use mate value mismatches as fodder for entertainment.

Assortative Mating is the Visible Part of the Iceberg

Assortative mating is the tendency to be attracted to someone who is similar in age, socio-economic status, educational attainment, geographic location, physical appearance, and facial attractiveness. Someone who is “in our league.” Linked to mate value, assortative mating is the dominant process in the mating market. Assortative mating is the part of the iceberg that is visible above the water; below the surface is the erotic-economic bargain that may influence how things sort out.

Definition of a Good Deal

Assortative mating demonstrates the power of “mate value” attributions about self and others. These value assessments fuel strategic mating behavior toward the people we desire, or at least determine who we actually end up with. People self-sort according to their mate value; traits and priorities are unconsciously or consciously ranked and considered as a whole. The mate value of most people is limited, so one cannot attract a committed partner who is at the maximum of every desired trait. Trade-offs are made. But the definition of a “good” deal in the mating game can be traced to how well the erotic-economic bargain is maximized in the favor of each person, considering their individual mate value and the availability of potential partners in the local mating pool.

Mate Value Sex Differences and Assortative Mating
Assortative mating is a neutral process with regard to sex differences over-all. Men and women seek similarities along many dimensions of background, and the market naturally brings them a partner with an equal mate value. The assortative mating process does match for equivalent mate value, but the mate value of a woman is powerfully defined by her physical beauty, and the mate value of a man is largely based on the size of his financial resources.

Trait Preferences and Perceptions of Attraction

Mate selection research has documented many shared preferences of men and women; they seek love, kindness, intelligence, and good health in their mates (as they uniquely define those traits). When entering a relationship, women place greater emphasis on the immediate access to resources in order to assess a potential mate’s willingness and ability to invest in her; if a man does show immediate investment in a relationship, the woman is typically more likely to have sex with him. (Spreecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994).

“The two sexes often engage in this exchange of reproductive currencies with men looking to exchange investment for sex and women preferring to exchange sex for investment.” (Kruger, 2008).

Emphasis on Attractiveness and Financial Prospects

Males and females rate the characteristics of physical attractiveness and financial prospects differently. The degree of emphasis that women place on the importance of a man’s financial prospects has been well documented (see references). The different valuation of these two traits is consistent throughout the world, with men placing a higher value on physical attractiveness and women placing a higher value on financial prospects. Men are generally indifferent to the financial prospects of women (Buss, 1989). But a woman’s preference for a mate with financial prospects also influences her perception of a man’s physical attractiveness.

Money and Beauty are Directly Correlated

Psychological researchers Richard Urdy and Bruce Eckland did a study of men and women to predict marital and socio-economic status fifteen years into the future. They used attractiveness ratings based on high school annual pictures. Results showed that a man’s level of resources was directly correlated with the level of physical attractiveness of his partner. Attractiveness allowed females to secure highly educated husbands with a high income. Money and beauty were correlated in a positive and linear relationship. 

The Car Makes the Man

Gregory Shuler & David McCord (Western Carolina University) used subject ratings from the website “Hot or Not” and found a linear and positive relationship between the value of a man’s car and the degree of attractiveness perceived by women. A man was depicted with three different cars: a decrepit Dodge Neon, a Ford Focus, and a Mercedes C Class C300. He was rated most “hot” when pictured with the Mercedes.

As reported in the British Journal of Psychology (April, 2009), researchers Michael Dunn and Robert Searle found that men positioned with a high-status, silver Bentley Continental GT were rated significantly more attractive than when the man was positioned with a red Ford Fiesta ST. When the conditions were reversed by sex, men did not rate women as more attractive in the high status vs. low-status condition; it had no influence. 

“Costly-signaling” by Men

Since women have a preference for men with resources, men have evolved strategies for the purpose of demonstrating this characteristic for women. Strategies include boasting about one’s resources, the derogation of a competitor’s status, ambition or resources, and displaying conspicuous consumption when in potential mating scenarios. Men tend to increase spending on luxury items (like a car) that indicates “costly-signaling” as a display of expendable income that could be potentially be allocated to a mate.

Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend

Other studies have shown a positive and linear correlation between female physical beauty and the monetary values of engagement and wedding rings. The value and expenditures for courtship and nuptial gifts increase with the physical attractiveness of the female. In a study by researchers Jaime Cloud and Madalyn Taylor (“The Effect of Mate Value Discrepancy on Hypothetical Engagement Ring Purchases”), women desired greater resource investment to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness in their male partners.

Reproductive Variance: the Haves and the Have-nots

“Reproductive variance” refers to the variability of reproductive success for human males and females. 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.

DNA studies by Jason Wilder and colleagues revealed that approximately 80% of women in human history have reproduced compared to approximately 40% of men. The human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Author and influential social psychologist, Roy Baumeister, (Is There Anything Good About Men), says reproductive variance between men and women was probably even greater through much of human history, and especially human prehistory. “In many animal species, close to 90% of the females but only 20% of the male reproduced. In modern times, human monogamy has spread across the globe. But in past eras, polygamy (one husband, multiple wives) was the norm, the reproductive imbalance would have been more severe” than 80% to 40%.

Most Men are Losers in the Mating Game

Put another way, a woman’s odds of having a line of descendants down to the present is double those of a man. Most women who ever lived to adulthood probably had at least one baby and in fact have a descendant alive today. Most men did not. Baumeister again: “Most men who ever lived, like all the wild horses that did not ascend to the alpha males’ top spot, left behind no genetic traces of themselves. Of all the humans ever born, most women became mothers, but most men did not become fathers.” Baumeister considers this “the single most underappreciated fact about the difference between men and women.”

The Super-Haves – Men at the Top of the “Economic”- Status Hierarchy

One of the greatest conquers in world history (13th century), Genghis Khan, is reported to have sired hundreds and possibly over a thousand children. In 2003, an international team of geneticists published a DNA analysis of central Asians. Researchers found that one in twelve men in Central Asia had the same Y chromosome. Genghis Khan had roughly 16 million descendants in 2003. 

Other Males Who Got More than Their Share

Other male all-stars in the genetic/Y chromosome reproductive hall of fame are: Middle Age king, King Nail. One in 12 in Ireland are genetically linked to King Nail, possibly 2-3 million worldwide. Manchu ruler (17th century), Nurhaci, or perhaps his grandfather Giocangga, has 1.6 million descendants alive today. Moulay Ismail ibn Sharif, a warrior King who ruled Morocco from 1672-1727, had 500 concubines and 888 children. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Idi Amin, Ugandan despot in the 1970s had 4 wives and 30 children. Large harems were the order of the day for the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Aztec kings, the Turkish sultans, the African kings, and the Chinese emperors. (Laura Betzig, Despotism and Differential Reproduction).

Incas Allocated Women According to Status

Inca law allowed male aristocrats 50 women apiece; the leaders of vassal nations (Inca feudal territories) were allotted 30, the heads of 100,000 men were given 20 women, and so on down to leaders of ten men, who were allotted 3. The men at the bottom often went unmarried (Sex and War, Malcom Potts and Thomas Hayden, p. 18-19). 

Erotic and Economic Power – the Age of Celebrity

At the high end of male and female mate value, rich men and beautiful women find each other. The erotic-economic bargain is commonly demonstrated by the preference and ability of older men to partner with significantly younger women – women usually in their fertile years at the time of the union. Take a look at the list below (Appendix) of high status, celebrity, rich men, and their wives. You will see up to 60+ years of age difference. Money can allow men to “mate down” decades to find beautiful women who will choose to partner with them.

Of course, many of these celebrities have attractive intellectual, physical, and emotional qualities (i.e. their talent), but what they have most importantly is high status and great wealth.

 Undeniably we see evidence of:

• the power of fame and money to attract younger women – with relative doses of charm, talent, and physical attractiveness.
• how resources, prestige, and status drive the mating system and female choice.
• how men, given options literally “afforded” them, will naturally pursue the most beautiful women.
• how the resistance against age difference, proclamations of “he is too old,” are relative to the degree of fame and money the man possesses.

All the men included here are rich and famous. All the women are beautiful. The erotic-economic bargain in stark terms.

Appendix

Age Differences of Male Celebrities and their Partners – The “Haves” of Erotic-Economic Exchange

References

Buss. D. M. & Schmitt, D.P. (1993) “Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.”  Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Buss, Shackleford, Kirkpatrick & Larsen, (2001). “A half century of mate preferences: the cultural evolution of values.”  Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (2), 491-503.

Dunn, M. &  Searle, R., (2009). “Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings.”  British Journal of Psychology, 101, (Pt 1) 69-80.

Gangestad, S.W. & Simpson, J.A. (2000). “The evolution of human mating: Tradeoffs and strategic pluralism.”  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587.

Kruger, D. J. (2008). “Young adults attempt exchanges in reproductively relevant currencies.” Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 204-212.

McAndrew, F., “Costly Signaling Theory,” Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Science, 2019.

Shuler, G., & McCord, D. (2010). “Determinants of Male Attractiveness: “Hotness” Ratings as a Function of Perceived Resources,” American Journal of Psychological Research, Vol. 6, No. 1.

Spreecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994).  Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in national sample.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074-1080.

Udry, J.R. & Eckland, B.K. (1984).  “The benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men and women.” Psychological Reports, 54, 47-56.

Wilder, J.A. et al, (2004). “Genetic evidence for unequal effective population sizes of human females and males.”  Molecular Biology and Evolution, 21, 2047-2057.

Domains of Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology

1. Behavioral dynamics in the mating economy

2. Long-term vs. short-term mating strategies

3. Trait preferences and priorities for mate selection

4. Physical attraction and perceptions of beauty

5. Concordance between physiological response and psychological desire

6. Spontaneous desire vs. response desire

7. Sex and love-making that fuels desire

8. Accelerator vs. brake: sexual excitation and inhibition systems

9. Brain structures: sexual pursuit and visual stimuli

10. Hormonal differences

11. Variety and novelty

12. Sexual mentation and “sex drive”

13. Influence of context

14. Female competing intentions and imposed double bind 

15. Sexual orientation (and preference) fluidity and response variability

16. Orgasm – purpose and characteristics

17. Meta emotions

18. Romance and desire, together and apart

19. Psychology of monogamy

20. Infidelity – reasons and response

21. Jealousy – triggers, tactics, and consequences

22. Sexual fantasies

*Assumptions of Mating Straight Talk

• Men and Women have similarities as human beings, and aggregate differences from each other, that are primarily a function of biology and evolutionary adaptation. Our similarities do not often cause conflict. But our differences, and the denial of those differences, often cause “trouble”.
• Men and Women have differences that we must acknowledge and understand in order to have satisfying heterosexual (romantic and sexual) relationships.
• Men and Women have differences that we must acknowledge and understand in order to bring clarity to the “politics” of sex and gender.
• Men and Women need “straight talk” (radical honesty) in order to uncover and accept our differences.
• Men and Women need straight talk about our differences in order to empower one another for co-creative relationships.

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