Thursday, February 07, 2008
The Evolution of Desire, Chapter Twelve
Part last of my extended discussion of
The Evolution of Desire concludes today, with this final entry on chapter twelve. The material in the chapter isn't that scintillating, but it motivated two long psychological digressions from me, the first on how/when women choose sexual partners vs. friends, and the second on the apparently controversial topic of an evolutionary bias towards rape.
There won't be any more
Evolution of Desire coming, but I've had two other books on male/female psychology sitting on my desk for weeks, waiting their turn for some review/discussion. I've also got an interesting book on the psychological manifestations that drive humans to scapegoat and condemn, such as during historical witch trials, the 1990s "Satanic Panic" outbreak centered around American daycare centers, the modern day penis-snatching/shrinking witchcraft panics in Africa, etc. Plus a cool book on the History of Witchcraft that I selected largely for research purposes, then found far more interesting than anticipated. Plus I've still got to get to reviewing/discussing the three recent atheist books by Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. I need to polish those off and get the books back too, since I just realized that I have a bag full of books from my university's library; books I checked out sometime before Xmas. Given that I graduated and am no longer a student there, I hope they'll let me slip them back into the return box without fining me more than the books would have cost in the first place. If not, what can they do; hold my diploma? (Oh wait...)
Anyway, on to the last chapter of The Evolution of Desire. There's a closing note on the whole book and review process at the end, so if you get bored choking down these 5800 words, skip to the end.
Chapter Twelve: The Mysteries of Human MatingThe last chapter in the Evolution of Desire is pretty clearly the junk drawer of the book. Stuff that's useful, but didn't fit neatly anywhere else. Mysteries, as Buss calls them. Homosexuality, rape, gender bias in emotional anticipation, "mate poaching," the struggle and mixed-metaphor that is non-sexual cross-gender friendship, and more. Are these questions answered? Will I get to all the lengthy digressions I've been saving up for just the right moment? Let's find out.
What About Homosexuality? The problems with homosexuality are pretty obvious, when viewed from an evolutionary standpoint. "Among sexually reproducing species, males and females must mate with each other for successful reproduction. Any orientation that lowers the likelihood of successful reproduction will be ruthlessly weeded out." Buss goes on to say that of the hundreds of lectures he's given on the topics covered in this book, questions about the biological persistence of homosexuality are the most frequently asked. So he must have some pretty good answers by now, eh? Not so much, as it turns out.
There are two key facts about the issue that baffle. Homosexuality is at least partially inheritable, as proven by numerous twin studies. And it's a proven fact that homosexual men tend to father fewer children than heterosexual men. (This might seem self-evident, but if enough gay men were donating sperm, or marrying for convenience, that could explain the persistence of a seemingly self-defeating genetic trait.) Therefore, the big question is, "How can a sexual orientation that is partly inherited continue to persist in the face of continual selection against it?" Theories abound.
One is the
kin altruism theory. Initially advanced by renowned naturalist E. O. Wilson, this theory holds that while homosexuals have a lower chance of reproducing, they are able to devote more of their resources to raising the children of their blood kin, thus indirectly furthering their genetics. The idea isn't purely conceptual; gay men tend to be born later in families and have older brothers, so the theory is that their odds of mating successfully probably weren't that good anyway. Also, since homosexual men tend to be more empathic and feminine (Buss cites nothing to back up this generalization), they may be more altruistic.
There are problems with the theory, ones so substantial that Buss says it's largely lost support in recent years. First of all, it does nothing to explain why people would be sexually attracted to their own gender. After all, the
kin altruism theory would work far better with people who were born asexual or infertile than homosexual. Secondly, it's not clear why people with greater altruism would necessarily direct that caring towards blood relations, rather than adopting, or helping out society in general. Thirdly, even if the theory is true, the genetic loss from bypassing parenting is huge, and it's not clear that slightly boosting the reproductive success of a sibling would offset that.
A newer explanation could be called the
mentor/pupil theory. It posits that the key to understanding homosexual persistence is homoerotic
behavior, not necessarily
orientation. The idea is that for men, especially adolescent boys, there were great benefits to be had by allying themselves closely to older, resource-rich males. "Proclivities for same-sex sexual behavior evolved, according to this theory, because of the alliance benefits provided their practitioners."
There are criticisms, of course. First off, homosexual behavior is anything but universal across cultures. This theory works for ancient Greece and a few other cultures, but the theorized behavior is not seen in most societies throughout history. Secondly, it still doesn't explain the sex. There are plenty of same-sex, non-sexual affiliations and bonds throughout human history, and they can be useful without leading to a lack of reproductive options for one or both participants. Third, it might explain homoerotic behavior, but doesn't explain why it would be exclusive. Bisexuality would seem a better option, evolutionarily speaking. Boost the economic/social prospects, and still get to pass on your genes directly.
Another possibility is the
nice-guy theory. This posits that homosexuality is a rare by-product of genes designed for another function; so-called feminine traits such as kindness, altruism, etc. All men have some of these genes, but some men hit a sort of genetic lottery and get enough that it affects their sexual orientation. Problems with this theory are not lacking: Why wouldn't men be nice and heterosexual? What proof is there that "nice" genes are necessarily female? Furthermore, while gay men are, on average, slightly more empathic, sensitive, and less aggressive than heterosexual men, there's no evidence that women prefer to mate with nice guys. In fact, there's quite a bit that argues against that, much of it found in the last chapter of this book.
Having disposed with the three major theories, Buss throws out a bunch of other half-baked ideas in need of more research: he mentions the "gay gene" that other researchers failed to confirm, mentions that women are more flexible in their sexual orientation (LUGs) while men tend to be more firmly gay or straight, and says more work is needed in the field. He thinks that it's possible that homosexuality in men and women will turn out to have very different explanations, though he doesn't elaborate. Studies thus far have focused more on gay men, probably because such individuals are so clearly giving up their procreative possibilities. Gay women, in contrast, can and do have children, and in historical times they were frequently forced into marriage and childbirth, thus imparting their genes to the next generation just as straight women did.
I don't have an answer to the question, but I'm surprised Buss didn't delve into more parallels to animal studies, as he does with every other issue about human sexuality. I don't think
mentor/pupil, or
nice-guy, or
kin altruism theories do much to explain gay penguins, or rats, or monkeys, or any of the many animals homosexuality has been documented in. Seems pretty likely to me that there are some misfiring genes crossing the sexual attraction wires, somewhere. Buss mentioned an idea that seems parallel to me; the issue about why men have nipples and women have orgasms. Some traits, behaviors, and features aren't necessary or beneficial to one gender, but they keep turning up since our genetic structures are so twisted and prone to malfunction.
The analogy I've heard is between our genes and computer software. No living things on this planet have new, clean programming. We're all v1.27, or more like v941.37691. Give or take a few decimal points. Humans are 99% chimps, but we're also 92% whales, 89% rats, and 67% fig trees. I made up the figures past chimps, but those are ballpark correct. We evolved from earlier creatures, who evolved from earlier ones, and back and back and back. We're just updated versions, with much of the same old code, and somewhere, deep deep down in the early versions, is a switch that triggers male => female, and female => male. It's too important a function to risk being lost or rewritten, so like male nipples and female orgasms, it persists, and sometimes it misfires?
Are Men Really More Interested in Casual Sex? Yes. Next section.
"A recent study of 281,064 college students at 421 different universities asked if they agreed/disagreed with a statement: 'If two people really like each other, it's alright for them to have sex even if they've known each other only for a very short time.'" 55.2% of men said yes, but only 31.7% of women agreed. First of all, I call shenanigans. Of those 44.8% of men who said no... most had to be trying to impress girls, or God. Given that actual scenario in their own lives... hell yeah they'd be all up in her. On the other hand, women are given that actual scenario, on almost a daily basis. And most of them do indeed decline the sex.
This section cites a bunch more studies and surveys, but they all prove what we knew already. Men, of every age, from every culture, and in every class, are considerably more likely to engage in sex without deep emotional involvement than comparable women. The differences grow less pronounced with greater age, but they still exist.
There are some less self-evident tidbits here and there. When giving their reasons for short-term mating, around 44% of women say it's to "increase the probability of long-term commitment." Only 9% of men give that reason. The anecdotes from women say they hoped it would lead to more, or they believe it when men say they love them, etc.
On the other hand, Buss brings up the old statistically impossibility; men of every age group reporting far more sexual partners than women. Some have suggested that this is caused by the under representation of prostitutes in these studies; women who average hundreds of partners a year. A study in 2000 in Chicago found an average of 694 partners a year for the sample group of whores, and that's enough to average out an awful lot of those "men report 20, women report 8" sexual partner surveys. Buss also points out that there's some wishful thinking and delusion on those self-reported "# of sexual partner" surveys. Women wish they'd had fewer and men wish they'd had more, so they fudge in the direction of their better judgment.
Can Men and Women Be "Just Friends?" Well, half of us can be. The half without a penis, and the assorted biological imperatives (covered in chapter three of this book), to attempt to impregnate any halfway accommodating female. Buss has figures galore from recent studies carried out by evolutionary psychologist April Bleske, and I'll quote a few.
When it comes to male/female friendships:
- Men are twice as likely as women to positively "evaluate the potential for sexual access" to their friend.
- Men are twice as likely as women to be sexually-attracted to their friend.
- Men expressed twice as strong a desire to have sex with their friend.
Best of all, when Bleske sorted the results by single vs. LTR respondents, the results were unchanged. Even married men were twice as likely to want to fuck their female friends as single women were to fuck male friends. As you'd expect, the individuals in these "friendships" were delusional about what their opposites wanted. Men though the women were at least considering sex, when it wasn't even on the radar for those women. Women thought the men were somewhat or not very interested in them, when the men were highly interested.
Men and women each gain from opposite sex friendships, but the individuals in those relationships need to be aware that there's quite likely a subcurrent of him wanting what we'll politely call "romance." Sometimes these desires are consummated; of the study group cited above, 20% had had sex with a friend, but FWBs aren't that common; certainly not as common as most men wish they were. (Also note that figure is not 20% of women have sex with their guy friends. So the solution, guys, isn't to have 5 female friends and count on the odds. The figure means that of the women in the survey, 20% at one point in their lives had sex with a guy friend. If each woman had 10 guy friends each, that's 1 guy out of 50 who scored the all access pass. So women do have sex with friends, but very, very rarely.
This topic ties into something I've long pondered; the differences in interest, desire, and what happens to make women want sex. For most men, any woman of reasonable attractiveness and a friendly disposition is a likely prospect for a sexual partner, and/or a girlfriend. Not that it works out that way, but the guy is thinking he wouldn't mind if it did. Personally, I've never had a female friend I didn't at least consider a sexual relationship with, even if it wasn't anywhere near a burning desire, or something I tried to work towards. It's just how the male mind works, as much of this book is dedicated to demonstrating. There's a difference between friendship and sex, but men don't have a problem blurring the lines, or erasing them, or overlapping them. At least conceptually.
Women don't see it that way. Women can completely compartmentalize their friendship from their sex drive, much the way men compartmentalize sex and love. In fact, that separation between friends/lovers seems to be pretty much the default setting, for females. They have guy friends, and sometimes they might think about sexual issues or attraction with that guy, but they dismiss the thoughts as irrelevant, or unpleasant. The guy friend is just a guy friend, and it's a surprise to the woman if he's thinking about her as anything other than a platonic friend.
I've seen this in person quite a few times recently. My IG has a bunch of guy friends, myself included. As I've said in the past, she's cute and young and friendly, so gets a lot of male attention. Usually to her pleasure, sometimes to her annoyance. For example, there were several other guys in the class we met in who tried their luck at courting her, and while she and I hit it off pretty quickly and were soon spending time together chatting after class, she was still polite to the other guys. So when they'd email her, or call her cell phone, or ask her to movies or concerts or other such events, she wouldn't really say yes, but she didn't outright say no, and they therefore kept after her. She ended up going to a movie, a punk concert, and a lunch with 3 guys she really didn't want to spend time with, and on all 3 occasions asked me why this kept happening to her. Why were guys always after her and asking to spend time with her? Didn't they have other friends to hang out with?
The answer, of course, was that yeah, they had friends, but not young cute female friends they wanted to have sex with. It was almost a
Little Annie Fannie scenario, minus the overt sexuality, since every time the IG and I would talk she'd ask me why Gregg, or Peter (names changed to protect the guilty) kept asking her to lunch, or kept sending her weird emails, or calling her and then not seeming to have anything to say. "Because they want to have sex with you/make you their girlfriend." I'd tell her, and she'd frown. "But we're just friends. I've never flirted with them or given them any indication I'm interested in them that way." At that point I had yet to find this book, so I didn't have pseudo-scientific facts to give her, but I made it pretty clear that while she might not see them that way, they definitely saw her that way, and it was motivating enough to keep them trying to win her over, pathetic and misguided though their efforts were.
For instance, eventually Gregg got her to go on a lunch date, which the IG thought was entirely just friendship/curiosity. To no man's surprise, he leaned in for an attempted kiss while she was killing time looking at discount cosmetics at a drug store, forcing her to dodge/spin away. Later, when they got back to their cars and were saying goodbye, he managed to corral her against a bench and gave her an apparently-rehearsed speech about how he thought they really had something in common and how they belonged together.
She begged off as politely as she could, said she'd talk to him later, and ran for her life. Ten minutes later she called me, laughing so hard she could hardly talk, and she'd had to pull over to the side of the road to get her breath. She told me the story, taking fifteen minutes to gasp it out since she kept dissolving into giggles, and when next we met she insisted upon recreating her dodging, ducking, twisting kiss-escape maneuver. She was quite proud of it, actually. I liked it too; very Kali-esque, in the sinuous avoidance, though Gregg would have also gotten some portion of an elbow or fist blocking his lips, if the IG had some martial arts training
And yeah, it was funny, but it certainly goes to demonstrate the point the book makes here. It really does more than that, since the guy in this instance was not, by any definition of the term, her friend. He was a guy she'd spoken to briefly one of her college classes, and traded a few polite, non-personal emails with. He knew almost nothing about her, they had very little in common, their age difference was even larger than hers and mine... he didn't even have her phone number! They'd communicated only through email, had one awkward, unpalatable lunch date at a neutral location, she'd dodged his attempt at a kiss, and he'd still gone ahead and all but proposed to her ten minutes later. If this doesn't give you ladies an idea how far gone men can get in their idealized fantasies about you, sexually and otherwise, I don't know what will.
Before I return to the book, I want to circle back to my earlier question; my wonderment at how different is the urge to turn a relationship sexual. As I said, I, and most men, (Gregg, certainly) are willing and usually pretty eager to move any friendship (even an acquaintance-ship) to a more "intimate" level. Women, for the most part, are not. Why? What's the difference? Why do men see sex as an end, or something fun that could be added to a relationship, while women see the relationship, even a very close friendship, as entirely separate from sex? This book has covered that in some detail -- from an evolutionary standpoint men want to spread their seed, while women select potential mates more carefully since mating is a huge investment. These biological behaviors hold true today, even when women aren't looking to settle down, and men are not looking to get a casual date pregnant.
This is just one of those things biology makes it impossible for us to understand in the other gender. Women don't understand why men are so casual about sex and so constantly interested in it, and men don't understand how women can not be thinking about sex with any guy they enjoy spending time with. I sometimes wonder if availability is tied in somehow. Most people like ice cream and candy, but people who work in factories or stores selling them are nauseated by the stuff, simply because they're around it all the time and can eat as much as they want. So, are men so interested in sex since such a small % of the women they meet are available for it? And are women disinterested in sex since most women could have sex with a large % of the men they see, if they so desired?
I think not. Eligible men, especially of the rich/young/single type; rock stars, athletes, actors, etc, can have sex with a ridiculous amount of women, and they usually do. They might get sick of it and want to settle down eventually, but they'll still think about sex all the time; they'll just develop some control and selectiveness. Women aren't like that. They could have sex all the time, but they don't, and they don't want to. Furthermore, and this takes them far beyond the level of an exhausted rock star, they don't think about sex, or realize that men are. The whole concept of "availability" is entirely different. Generally speaking, women don't consider some random guy at a supermarket, or gas station, or public library, as a potential sex partner. It just doesn’t enter their minds the way it does for almost every man.
The thing that confuses me though, is what's the difference between a guy a woman trusts and likes and wants to confide in, and a guy a woman trusts and likes and wants to have sex with? It's not purely based on physical attraction, or personality, or merit, or wealth, or how long she's known him. Women aren't robots; there's no exact combination of factors that = sexual readiness. Human beings are odd, our psychology is odder, and the "chemistry" between two people can't be quantified. But it's puzzling to a man when women make their decisions on such intangibles, and they seem to defy logic. (Not that men are any more logical, but perhaps we're more consistently illogical?)
Every woman I've talked to about her past romances (whether we were in a romance ourselves or not) has felt regret about most of them. She didn't really like the guy, he was a lousy lover, he cheated on her, he wasn't kind or caring or compassionate, etc. Meanwhile, they've known other guys (sometimes including myself) who they did like, did enjoy spending time with, did trust, but who they never considered having sex with, to the point that they were sure the guy hadn't been interested in them that way, and/or were shocked when that guy expressed his romantic interest.
I guess the male confusion boils down to, "Why him, but not me?" and there's no answer to that. At least no answer that can be expressed in any logical terms.
The woman might reply. "Why chocolate instead of vanilla? Or strawberry? Or almond double fudge crunch?"
To which the guy, still confused, would say, "But why not all of them? I thought you liked ice cream?"
I think I need a female co-writer on this one. It's just getting longer and longer without coming to any conclusion. Back to the book.
Friends as Rivals. This section covers mate poaching in same-sex friendships. I.e., two guys are friends, and one of them steals the other's wife. Or at least secretly bangs her behind his back when they break up for a weekend. According to studies, this sort of thing is quite common, in every combination of genders and friendships, and is almost always practiced in secret and deception. Women are apparently far more aware of this issue than men, often reacting suspiciously when their female friends show any personal interest in their man. Especially if that female friend is newly-single.
The Specter of Mate Poaching. Finding a good mate is hard. Beautiful people move from one relationship to another; people who have a desirable mate hold onto him/her, and for single people on the outside looking in, it can seem like everyone good is taken already. One solution? Try to take the taken.
Buss cites his own survey, in which 60% of men and 53% of women admitted to having attempted to lure someone out of a relationship. About half of these attempts succeeded. Most people in a relationship say they've had the same problem; someone tried to lure them out; 93% of men and 82% of women said someone had pulled on them for an LTR, and 87% of men and 94% of women said they'd been offered a brief encounter. Maybe the survey corrected for this, but Buss doesn't list his methodology, so I've got to wonder. Given how many places he's cited the delusions men and women are under about sexual interest, how accurate are these figures? Women apparently don't know when men are hitting on them, and men mistake any female politeness for sexual interest. So are the actual figures more like 100% of women have had someone try to lure them, of which 20% didn't realize it? On the other hand, maybe only about 18% of men have had a woman actually try to lure them away, while the other 75% of men imagined that their neighbor mouthed the word "blowjob," when she waved while out walking her dog last week?
That issue aside, Buss points out that friends are uniquely well-positioned for mate poaching. They already know the partner, they can be around socially and ingratiate themselves, they may become a confidant in times of discord, they know the schedule of their rival, can easily arrange to be around more often when he or she is out of town, or at work, etc.
Defending Against Sexual Treachery--Jealousy and Mate Guarding. Fortunately for those of us who would like to be in and stay in a relationship, mate poaching has gone on forever, and counter measures have been developed. Jealousy and possessiveness, already covered in earlier chapters, are the main defenses.
There's some interesting insight into human nature in this section though. It seems that men and women are more perceptive about what their mates are most interested in than we might expect. As expected and covered previously, women are more concerned by their man developing an emotional relationship, while men are more upset by sexual infidelity. However, when men were asked to rank a long list of characteristics a rival might possess, they were most worried about other men who had better financial prospects, job prospects, and physical strength. Women were most worried about a woman who had a more attractive face, or a more desirable body. Okay, the physical strength one is kind of an outlier, since nothing in the book has indicated that women especially care about that, but the other traits are all dead on, in terms of what the genders are most likely to base their next mate selection on.
Do Men Have Adaptations to Rape? Rape exists in all cultures, to a greater or lesser extent. It exists in animals too; a long paragraph talks about odd, half-sized, arrested-development orangutans who nevertheless have fully-mature sexual organs. One researcher observed 151 copulations by such males, of which 144 were forced, with the female screaming, fighting back, and attempting to bite, all behaviors never exhibited when mating with full sized, dominant males.
Scholarly study of rape in humans is not common, and received a big boost in the year 2000, when biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig Palmer published
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, a book that was instantly engulfed in controversy and bitterness, much of it directed towards the authors. I'll get to that in a minute, but first for the book. In it Thornhill-Palmer put forward two theories in an effort to explain some of the motivation and history of rape in evolutionary terms. 1) Rape is an evolved male adaptation as a reproductive strategy, or 2) rape is a by-product of other evolved mannerisms, such as a desire for sexual variety, or low-cost casual sex.
Points for each thesis are presented, but since this issue was covered thoroughly
in chapter seven, I'm going to refrain from repeating it here.
Buss repeats the info about rape victims being almost entirely young and attractive females, and rape perpetrators being chiefly promiscuous men from lower economic classes. He's got some new figures about male physical responses to rape, that I found amazing. The earlier chapter discussed the fact that men ejaculate far more sperm when they make love to their partners after some time away, regardless of the frequency of their orgasms; a seeming adaptation to improve the odds of fertilization. Rape victims seem to receive the same gift: pregnancy rates of victims of penile-vaginal rape are extraordinarily high -- 6.42%, vs. 3.1% from consensual sex, per incident.
It's unclear why this is; there are some issues with selection bias; since rapists are overwhelmingly targeting fertile young women, but even controlling for that, rape victims become pregnant at a higher rate than women engaging in consensual sex. One possibility is more selection bias; as the book puts it, "men who court women using normal mating strategies are at the mercy of discriminating females, whereas rapists are not... thus rapists might choose women who, in addition to being young, are especially physically-attractive. Since attractive women are more fecund this might explain the unusually high rape-pregnancy rate."
I was thrown for a moment on that one; attractive women are more fecund? Then I was like, "Oh yeah. That's only the whole point of the book; that men select attractive women since their attractiveness is an outward sign of their fertility."
Buss concludes that there's way too little evidence to make any conclusions about rape, and the reason there's so little evidence is because the issue is so controversial that it's very difficult to research it. He says the book by Thornhill-Palmer has been "castigated, denounced, and ridiculed more than any other book n the recent history of science." I of course had to go look it up after that recommendation. There's a
brief and uncontroversial overview of the book on Wikipedia, but better coverage can be found on Amazon. The book has a couple of semi-critical editorial reviews, and a battleground of reader reviews. Of the 64 reviews now posted, 25 are 5-star and 33 are 1-star. Lovely polarization there. I hope to receive reviews of that nature for my work, someday. I'd rather be loved and hated than indifferent'ed.
The main
textual criticisms are that the authors cherry-picked their study results, and advanced some other conclusions on very flimsy evidence. For instance, their contention, repeated by Buss in
The Evolution of Desire, that women of child-bearing years experience more trauma after a rape than older or younger women, is apparently very thinly-sourced, and extrapolated from one limited study over 30 years ago. Since this point is one of the key arguments for an evolutionary, reproductive aversion to rape on the part of women, it's fairly important if the data is valid or not.
Skimming over the 1-star reviews, looking for some juicy quotage, I'm disappointed. You can find more fiery condemnation in Harry Potter reviews than for this book. Quite a few of the 1-starrers are civil and lucid, and quite a few others obviously haven't read the book and are just parroting arguments they heard elsewhere: the authors just want publicity, the book will give men an excuse/justification to rape, it's pseudo-science, etc. There's a lot of ignorance of the whole concept of evolutionary biology/psychology too, but that's not surprising. Many angry people harp on the issue of child rape, or point out that most rape doesn't result in a baby being born. The first is horrible, and the second is true, but neither relates to the subject at hand.
The evolutionary argument isn't that an individual act of rape is an attempt by a man to reproduce; the argument is that over the hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution on this planet, rape has been a successful reproductive strategy often enough to encode a proclivity for it into male genes. Saying that an individual man's act of rape didn't result in a child answers that argument about as well as a creationist saying that evolution isn't true since the monkeys in the zoo aren't turning into people: it's irrelevant to the argument and only displays your ignorance of the issue.
To extend the analogy: humans enjoy and pursue sexual intercourse just as avidly even when they know birth control will thwart the natural outcome of the act. Some humans enjoy masturbation, or oral sex, or homosexual activities just as much, if not more, than other humans enjoy male/female intercourse. Why? Because their bodies, driven by eons of evolution, don't know or care that their particular acts of rutting won't produce offspring. Plus there's individual psychological preference too. Now obviously there's a surface level of sexual desire, or if we return to rape and the classic feminist arguments, there's a lot of anger by men, issues of control, and all the other classic "rape is an act of violence" stuff. Nothing in the "rape is an evolutionary adaptation" theory denies that; it just tries to find a deeper root cause upon which cultural baggage is piled.
I'm not sold on the evolutionary thesis, and the critiques of the research are pretty telling (and make me view Buss' book in a less confident light, since he's enthusiastically and unquestioningly passing them along) but it's a theory that I think deserves consideration. Which is not to say I think any act of rape is justified or excused. Or that I'd stop short of murdering, or at least lingeringly-castrating, any man who committed such a crime against a woman I loved. But then, I've already been in arguments
over my enthusiastic approval of violent acts of vengeance.
The rest of chapter 12 includes a lot more discussion of possible rape motivations and defenses, but I've digressed on the subject enough already. There's also coverage of "Cognitive biases in sexual mind-reading" which sounds interesting but boils down to "men think women want sex when they don't." and we've heard that one 500x already in this book. Buss concludes things with a short section on the centrality of mating in social life. I'll quote his last paragraph, just to wrap things up.
No social relationship remains untouched by mating. Men misread women's smiles in the service of sexual exploitation. Women remain skeptical of men's commitment signals to avoid sexual victimization. Fathers guard their daughters to influence mate choice, and daughters manipulate their fathers to mate with the men they love. Both sexes deploy deceptive signals. Men and women experience great difficulty being "just friends." Same-sex allies sometimes turn into Trojan horses. Mate poachers lurk behind smiling faces. Sometimes, thankfully, we find lifelong love. As individuals, mating permeates much of what we do. As a species, it defines who we are.
This was far from a perfect book, but it had a tremendous amount of grist for my intellectual mill, as these almost never-ending reviews and discussions testify. If you've read them all, congrats and I hope you learned something, or at least found some interest and entertainment in them. I got horribly carried away with the discussion and recapping, but much of it fascinates me, and I was writing these notes for myself as much as my blog readers. That hardly explains my multi-page digressions in each chapter, or the fact that I cover the boring chapters in as much detail as the fascinating ones, but this is what 3 very intensive semesters of college did to me; provided me with a semi-useless degree, and got me attuned to reading, analyzing, and discoursing. At length. Plus I couldn't go off on tangents and personal opinions like this in my school papers, so I enjoyed doing so here.
I don't know how long all of these entries together are, but just this one is about 18 pages at the standard double-spaced, 12 point, TNR, 1" margins. And I wrote 8 or 9 other entries that weren't a great deal shorter. Pity I didn't put half this much effort into editing my fantasy novel over the past 3 weeks, eh?
Labels: the evolution of desire
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The Evolution of Desire, Chapter 11
The second to last chapter is a juicy one, primarily for the extensive coverage of issues surrounding the female orgasm. See my extensive coverage of all the chapters of
this interesting book here.
Chapter Eleven: Women's Hidden Sexual StrategiesThis intriguingly-titled chapter is not one of those "Ten Secrets of Seduction That Really Work" Cosmo articles. It's deeper, but less practical, than that. As Buss overdramatically states about women:
Hidden within their bodies, concealed within their minds, reside bewildering intricacies of sexuality that cry out for understanding. Some strategies remain secret for an excellent evolutionary reason--they cannot be implemented successfully if their true design is revealed.
Whoa! It's like, they're there, but they're not there if you look for them! Like the
Vaginaberg Uncertainty Principle! Or perhaps not.
At any rate, there are four aspects of the human female that seem mysterious, in genetic, evolutionary terms. What function do they serve? Why have they persisted for millions of years of evolution, when they are not obviously (to Buss, at least) explained by physical function? 1) Female orgasm, 2) women having affairs, 3) are female sexual strategies linked to their menstrual cycle, and 4) can men detect when women are ovulating? Okay, that last one doesn't seem to have much to do with women's sexual secret, it's more about men wanting to have sex even more than usual at some special time of the month. Don’t complain to me though, it's not my list. I'm just reviewing this thing.
Let's start, unlike virtually every romantic encounter in the history of our species, with the female orgasm.
Is Female Sexual Orgasm an Adaptation? Buss is very honest and unscientific in this chapter, and he repeatedly allows his male interests and confusions to the fore. How's this for a quote rich in personal angst, "Women's sexual orgasm has puzzled, frightened, delighted, disturbed and mystified men for centuries." Why is the physical function of a woman's orgasm is so amazing to so many male doctors? Buss includes several quotes from women describing the sensation of an orgasm; they've got all of those "waves of pleasure" and "uncontrollable contractions" and such, but um... so? That's what men feel too, it's just that the male orgasm is much easier to instigate and so easily quantified by ejaculation. I guess it's the lack of a clear, obvious, undeniable feature, such as ejaculation, that makes the female orgasm seem so mysterious? That and the fact that most women fake a lot more of them than they actually experience.
Surveys have returned very different numbers on that issue, to no one's surprise. Buss cites one "fairly typical study," which says 15% of women always had an orgasm from intercourse, 48% usually, 19% sometimes, 11% occasionally, and 7% never. He says other studies came up with equivalent numbers, which surprises me, since every woman I've talked to about this issue has been in the 11% camp, or 19% at best. I'd add that one was in the 7% before me, but that would sound like bragging, even if I admitted that I only moved her up to the 19% range. At best.
In one of the biggest failings in the entire book, the obvious follow up question is not addressed. Why weren't the women asked how often they faked their orgasm? Why wasn't that same question put to the husbands/bfs of those women? In my experience, from talking to a fair number of women about this topic, they all admitted to faking almost every time, and they all said their BFs at the time were utterly convinced by their acting. So while I think these 15/48/19/11/7 figures are exponentially high, I'd bet most guys would be like, "Wow, that's funny. Every woman I've ever been with has been in the 15% group. I guess I'm just that good."
I agree with Buss that there's a huge mystery about female orgasm, but we disagree on what the mystery is. I think the mystery is how men can continue to believe she's not faking that display of moaning and panting, when it comes after 5 minutes of fellatio-centered foreplay, and maybe 3 minutes of desperate thrusting. I'm not exactly volunteering for this, but I think every relationship would be much improved by one mandatory session with a strap on, shortly after sexual intercourse commences. The woman could hump away at the guy for a few minutes, then grunt some, take the Lord's name in vain a few times, and ask, "Was it good for you?"
When the man stammered out an incredulous, "Um... not really." the woman could say, "Well, keep that in mind next time you're on top." What the man chose to do with that bit of insight would be up to him, but at least he'd have received one hard lesson in reality, upon which to base (or not) his future behavior and beliefs.
You could object and say that men don't enjoy butt sex, and make analogies to prison, etc, but you'd be full of shit. Literally as well as metaphorically. Plenty of men do, not just gay men, and prison rape isn't comparable, since, duh, it's rape. No one's suggesting female sexual response from rape be weighted evenly with orgasm frequency from consensual intercourse in the context of a loving relationship. After all, I sincerely doubt many women are polite enough to fake orgasm for the benefit of their rapist, though you never know; old habits might die hard.
Buss isn't as proactive in his suggestions, and after his absurd survey figures, he moves into the evolution discussion.
One leading theory is that unlike the obvious function of the male orgasm, the female doesn't actually have a purpose. It's not necessary for conception, and in fact female orgasm is like the male nipple; functionless, but still there because it's essential in the other gender. Steven J. Gould is quoted on this one. Gould said that males and females are not separate entities, but, "...are variants upon a single ground plan, elaborated later in embryology." Points in his argument:
- There's no compelling evidence that non-human female primates experience orgasm during intercourse, although they do have the capacity for orgasm from clitoral stimulation.
- Female orgasm is unnecessary for conception.
- Female orgasm is highly variable between women, and even in the same woman depending on her partner.
- Female orgasm is entirely unknown in some cultures.
There's a quote of a ethnographic survey to back that last one up. :
In most societies for which there are data, it is reported that men take the initiative, and without extended foreplay, proceed vigorously toward climax without much regard for achieving synchrony with the woman's orgasm. Again and again, there are reports that coitus is primarily complete in terms of the man's passions and pleasures, with scant attention paid to the woman's response. If women do experience orgasm, they do so passively.
Fortunately, men in America in this day and age have moved far beyond that style of sex. Right, ladies?
Buss presents this argument, then immediately undermines it by citing more recent medical data that indicates that female stumptail macaque monkeys do appear to achieve orgasm during intercourse. He also cites some anthropological studies of other tribal cultures in which women insist upon longer duration of intercourse, and seem to require that the man satisfy them before he is finished. So the question is still open to discussion, apparently.
Five Possible Functions of Female Orgasm Various popular hypotheses to suggest why women have orgasms, in evolutionary, biological terms.
- The hedonic hypothesis. Orgasm makes sex more fun, so women are therefore more likely to engage in it, leading to more reproduction.
- The Mr. Right hypothesis suggests that orgasm serves as a mate selection device. A man who shows he is sensitive to her needs is advertising his suitability as a mate. Amusingly, this one has received some empirical support by large-scale surveys, but not as proposed. Instead, it seems that women might be more likely to cheat when they're not getting orgasms from their husband. The causality is in question though; do happier marriages lead to more orgasms and less cheating, or vice versa?
- The paternity confidence hypothesis says that women display orgasm to their partner to make him feel he's keeping her satisfied and that she's not straying. Given how men feel about infidelity, this seems a reasonable theory. It also ties in nicely with the fact that most women fake orgasm; it's not just a sop to fragile male ego. Well, it is, but fragile male ego in this case stems directly from male biological worries about
- The paternity confusion hypothesis makes no sense to me. It states that women have orgasms to give them incentive to have sex with more men, thus making many men unsure if the baby might be theirs, and thus making them more likely to assist her and less likely to kill the baby that might be their son/daughter. Huh? This seems to go opposite to all else we know about women not wanting to suggest infidelity, so it seems like a bullshit theory to me, and according to Buss, the female anthropologist who originally suggested it has backed away from it in more recent work. I guess he included it since five is more than four?
- The sperm retention hypothesis states that the cervix dips lower when women have orgasms, thus making fertilization more likely. Possible, but dubious, given that humans have no problem reproducing when there's no female orgasm involved.
In other interesting female orgasm news; female Japanese macaque monkeys are more orgasmic with higher ranking males, regardless of the duration of intercourse. This was especially true when low ranking females mated with high ranking males. Seems to mesh with human studies, in which women find sex more enjoyable with more desirable men. It's almost as if our mental state and psychology ties into our sexual enjoyment? Wow, what won't science prove next.
Physical attraction matters too; women married to more physically attractive men (as determined by outsider observers) reported more orgasmic sex lives. Again, the direction of causality is in question, though. More attractive men might be better lovers, either from confidence or greater experience.
Buss' ultimate summation is that the Mr. Right theory is most likely, but in an odd way. Women are more orgasmic when they're cheating, they're more likely to cheat when they are ovulating, and they tend to cheat with men who are more attractive than their husbands. It's therefore suggested that female orgasm probably originated as a by-product, as Gould suggests. But it's been modified by evolution to determine with who, and when, women conceive.
He ends the section by finally getting to the question I was waiting for. What about male adaptations to female orgasm? If the female orgasm is such a potent aspect of conception, why haven't men evolved better ability to trigger it, more ability to withhold their own orgasm until the female's hits, the ability to ejaculate just after a female orgasm (the best time for conception), and a better ability to detect fake orgasms? As Buss says, there's "no evidence for these hypothesized co-evolved adaptations." Further study is needed, obviously.
Why Do Women Have Affairs? It's obvious why men do, genetically speaking. And men do it more often, but women do it too, even though there's no obvious genetic reason for it. Why?
Nearly all men have sexual fantasies about someone other than their current partner, but women aren't far behind; upwards of 80% report this, in most studies, and around 34% of women's erotic daydreams feature someone other than their partner. This matters too; all men frequently fantasize about other women, but cheaters and non-cheaters are nearly identical in their fantasy frequency. However, women who fantasize about other men are much more likely to cheat (53% of cheating women vs. 30% of non-cheaters). Again, there's the causation vexation; do women who are unsatisfied fantasize about another man since that's what they want, or do women who fantasize about another man talk themselves into cheating?
The biological issue remains as well. Men who cheat have a clear opportunity to increase their reproduction rate. Women can only have one baby at a time, so it's not a question of more for them, but of with whom. Also, women incur substantial risks through infidelity. As previous chapters discussed, men rate their partner's infidelity as the single most upsetting thing she can do. Women who cheat risk their marriages, their male support, their reputations, their future value on the dating market, contracting STDs, and more. All of which makes the question more pertinent. Why do women cheat, when there is so much risk and seemingly so little possible gain?
The
good genes hypothesis is one commonly argued. It's worth the risk of being caught cheating by a husband in order to be impregnated by a man with superior genetics. Low status women are able to cheat on their husbands by mating with higher status men they could not hope to marry, and studies, as well as your usual
Maury Show paternity test, indicate that they often do. Extensive studies into paternity are not often conducted, since most people simply do not want to know, but the few tests that have gone on and been published indicate a cuckoldry rate of around 10%, worldwide. A large study in Monterey, Mexico found 12% of children were not their father's. Buss mentions a colleague who, while researching breast cancer and genetics in the US, found a 10% cuckoldry rate. So yes, about 10% of the people reading this have a cheating mother, and an unknown father. Be interesting if, in the future as genetic mapping becomes more common, it becomes routine for people to find out for certain if they really are the product of their mom and dad. The whole world will become one big Maury Show!
Buss concludes this section with several pages of survey results, mostly concerning women's hypothetical interest in cheating, or their hypothetical benefits from it. Most involve boredom, or a way to get more sexual pleasure or boost their self esteem. Women who aren't happy with their partner are more likely to cheat, which seems to tie into the "testing their value on the dating market" or "searching for a new partner" theories. Common sense, really.
He gets to some answers about why women cheat later in the chapter. But first...
Do Women's Menstrual Cycles Influence Sexual Strategies? Yes. Studies of women with regular 28-day cycles show their desire increasing steadily until ovulation, on the 14th day, and then decreasing as they approached menstruation. This despite the fact that other studies show that women don't consciously know when they're ovulating.
Another study had women fill out questionnaires about their sexual desires and appetites. The women were much more likely to experience sexual fantasies, especially about other men, when ovulating. Much more interestingly, another study had women rate the type of male face they were most attracted to at different times during their cycle. On average, more masculine, rugged faces were rated highest during ovulation, and more feminine, boy band type faces were rated highest during non-fertile times of the month.
The logic of this is not that ovulating women want to fuck lumberjacks, (well, they do, but there's more to it than that) but that high levels of testosterone yield masculine features, and that only boys who are very healthy during adolescence can produce such high testosterone, thus showing, like a peacock's tail, that they're genetically very fit. So, when women want to get pregnant they want manly men, but they want less macho men for long term partners, probably since experience or instinct tells them that very macho men make poor mates since they cheat constantly. "Women judge the less masculine faces, preferred during their least fertile days of the month, as a signal of cooperativeness, honesty, and good parenting qualities."
Buss seems to be stretching the conclusion here a bit, and other studies have not replicated the same degree of preference for girly men during low fertile times of the month. However, numerous studies have found that women prefer more masculine faces while ovulating.
Can Men Detect When Women Ovulate? Apparently not. Many studies have searched for evidence of that, and most theorists expect that men should have evolved this ability, but there's no evidence for it. This is especially odd when humans are compared to other animals and primates, since most of those animals only mate when the females are ovulating, and in most cases it's very obvious when the females are in season.
Scientists are still studying it though, and there have been some positive results. Men seem to find female body odor more intriguing when the woman is ovulating, as judged by men sniffing the t-shirts study subjects had worn during different times of the month. Women's skin color changes slightly when they're ovulating as well, since the skin becomes "vascularized, more suffused with blood in a way that corresponds to what men subjectively experience as a woman appearing to 'glow.'"
Women behave differently too; observations and studies of women in singles bars demonstrates that they are more forward, touch men more often, wear more revealing clothing, etc, when they are ovulating. This runs us into the causation issue again, since maybe men can tell women are ovulating, or maybe women just feel "sexier" then, so behave in ways that men notice. It also appears that men become more protective and guarding of their mates when they're ovulating, though the evidence for this is largely anecdotal.
Buss theorizes that we'll know far more about this in a decade, since many studies are underway on the issue. Scientists are looking for more indirect evidence; do men become more sexually insistent when their partners are ovulating? Do women who are cheating become especially good at deceiving or avoiding their mates? Do men feel more loving at that time? Do men feel less loving or more insecure when she's not ovulating? All good topics for study, and one can sense Buss planning a new edition to his book every few years from here on out.
Next time, the final chapter. Mysteries of Human Mating.
Labels: sex, the evolution of desire
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Evolution of Desire: Chapters 8-10
Continuing on my merry way, here are the 5th, 4th, 3rd to last chapters in this book. Yes, finally.
Chapter Eight: Breaking UpChapter Eight starts off with an old proverb.
Women marry believing that their husbands will change;
Men marry believing that their wives will not change
They're both wrong.
Pretty well sums it up, eh? Moving right along, chapter nine covers... Well, not quite yet.
Buss follows the quote by citing the 50% divorce rate in the US, then delves into some historical info. Divorce is not a recent phenomena, nor is it confined to any particular cultures. Societies governed by religions or belief systems that discourage (or criminalize) marriage can control it, but humans are in no way naturally monogamous. Most primitive tribes that have been studied show high rates of divorce, and mate hopping is S.O.P. in some. "Among the Ache of Paraguay, the average man and woman are married and divorced more than eleven times each by the time they reach the ate of forty."
Humans have always had straying eyes and a desire to upgrade their mate. Even aside from that, life was perilous and short throughout much of human history, and death from disease, accident, and murder has long claimed one half of a couple. Death comes for men and women, but men have always been more prone to living a shorter life. Hunting accidents, warfare, fights for dominance within a tribe, and many other causes were taking out young men long before drunk driving was available, and as Buss points out, it must have made genetic sense for women to keep their eyes open for replacement options. After all, their husbands certainly were.
Changes in life or in one's partner don't necessarily trigger conscious, logical thoughts. People just start to realize that maybe they could do better. "Just as our taste preferences for sugar, fat, and protein operate without our conscious awareness of the adaptive functions they serve, so marital dissolution mechanisms operate without our awareness of the adaptive problems they solve." Large scale studies have been conducted across hundreds of societies, and while it's impossible to directly compare due to cultural differences, common themes can be agreed upon. As you will expect by this point in the book, the top causes of divorce are events tied to reproduction: infidelity and infertility.
Infidelity. This one is huge for both sexes. "The most powerful signal of a man's failure to retain access to a woman's reproductive capacity is her infidelity. The most powerful signal of a woman's failure to retain access to a man's resources is his infidelity." Of 43 categories that can cause divorce, adultery is #1 in more than half the societies studied, and in many of those men can opt for an immediate divorce if they find their wives are cheating. Women have that right far less commonly. Why the male bias on cheating? Especially considering that men are far more likely to cheat? Buss gives several reasons: 1) Men have greater power to impose their will, in most societies. 2) Women may be more forgiving of sexual infidelity so long as men do not withdraw their resources. 3) The costs of divorce might be so high that the woman can't risk it with children to support. Infidelity can also be used as a tool to dissolve an unwanted relationship; either by cheating and driving away a spouse, or spreading rumors of their infidelity to give yourself an excuse to move on.
Infertility. Just like animals, human couples often break up if there's an inability to reproduce. Infertility is exceeded only by infidelity as a leading cause of divorce all around the world. Even societies that do not permit divorce usually have mechanisms to allow a separation in the event of infertility. Having kids is worth the trouble, in some ways. Children strengthen a relationship, or at least greatly lower the odds of divorce. Couples with no children divorce much more often than those with two or more children, to a striking degree. According to a worldwide UN study, 39% of divorces happen to childless couples, 26% to couples with one child, 19% to couples with two children, and less than 3% to couples with four or more kids.
Age isn't often a factor cited in divorce studies, but when it is it's usually related to fertility. In no society do women commonly divorce older men. Yet in a number of societies men divorce older women, and it's a universal truism that men tend to marry younger when when/if they remarry. Cruel and unfortunate though this maybe, it's quite genetically logical, since female reproductive fitness declines so rapidly past age 40.
Sexual Withdrawal. Another highly-ranked reason for divorce, this one is unsurprisingly gender skewed too. In numerous societies men will divorce their wives if sexual access is denied for a period of time. There isn't any data to show that the opposite is true, at least not other than in isolated cases. Like infidelity, intentional sexual withdrawal can be a very effective tactic to dissolve an unwanted relationship.
Lack of Economic Support. This is the converse of sexual withdrawal. Something that causes divorce in many cultures, and is much more upsetting to women than to men. Humans have an inherent bias towards men earning more than their wives, and when this ratio is upset, so are couples. American marriages in which the woman earns more money than her husband are 50% more likely to divorce than those in which the husband is the primary breadwinner. This seems to upset both partners; men often feel inadequate, and women often feel their husband is lazy, that they deserve better, or they simply feel safer looking to upgrade when they do not rely on their husband's resources.
Conflict Among Multiple Wivess. Not something many of us will ever have to worry about, but it is a common difficulty in cultures that permit polygamy. Quite a few still do; 83 out of 853, in a worldwide study Buss cites, and plenty of men still try to pull it off in cultures that do not officially sanction the practice. Rules seem to help: the book details the strict rules found in some polygamous societies. For instance, among the Kipsigis in Kenya, each wife gets an equal plot of land and shares it with the husband. The Kipsigis men maintain a separate residence apart from the wives, and alternate days of the week with each woman, carefully allocating time equally. The best tactic for cooperative polygamy seems to be "sororal polygamy," in which a man marries two (or more) sisters. Yes, just like a Playboy photo fantasy come to life! Except for the "marriage" part...
Implications for a Lasting Marriage. On the whole, Buss recommends that married couples treat each other well, refrain from cheating, and have children if they want to stay together. A minute to learn; a lifetime to master!
Chapter Nine: Changes Over TimeThis chapter opens with a charming story about chimpanzees fighting for dominance in the zoo in the Netherlands. One male has long dominated the colony and gotten most of the sex. He ages, another male rises up and kicks his ass, and starts claiming all the women. The ousted male doesn't give up though, and forms an alliance with another male, teaming up to overthrow the new alpha male and regaining some access to the girls. The lesson, for animals as well as humans, is time passes, and there will always be physical and psychological changes that affect sexual access. Don't get too complacent, but don't give up hope if you get kicked out of bed, since there are ways to get back in!
Changes in a Woman's Worth. Not a tough one to figure out, in light of the information in the rest of this book. Women's reproductive value peaks in their early 20s and declines thereafter, dropping sharply past 40. Men who can trade up will often do so, if they give in to their genetic urges. This obviously doesn't happen in every case, and most 50 year old men don't have the looks or resources (or nerve) to claim a highly-desirable 20 year old. But the genetic urge will always be there.
Buss cites the case of a business man who had six children with a woman who died young. He remarried, to a woman 3 years older than him, and that second wife devoted her life to raising his children. Then when his kids were in college...
he divorced the woman who had raised them, married a 23 year old Japanese woman, and started a second family. His behavior was ruthless and not very admirable, perhaps, but his circumstances had changed. From his individual perspective, the value of his second wife lowered precipitously when his children were grown, and the attractiveness of the younger woman increased to accompany his new circumstances.
Buss conveys this reality with more than anecdotes. There are several pages of stats and surveys backing up the point. Tribal peoples pay much lower bridal prices for older women. Numerous worldwide surveys show that men and women rate female attractiveness with a strong correlation to age. On the whole, it seems that older women would do well to remain married. They can maintain considerable value -- emotional, economic, parenting, social -- to a husband, but much less on the dating market. For prospective suitors, older women have little to no reproductive value, their beauty is lessened, and their time and resources may already be devoted to their children and grandchildren.
Loss of Desire. An almost universal problem of marriage, this one illustrates clearly why sultans used to kick the 30 year olds out of their harems. Almost immediately after marriage, men begin to complain that their wives are less receptive to sex. 14% of newlywed men voice this complaint, and the figure rises to 43% by the fourth year of marriage. It's not just the time married either; the age of the woman factors in as well. Married 19 year olds engage in intercourse an average of 11.5 times per month. By age 30 that's dropped to 9 times a month. By 42 it's down to 6 times a month. Past 50 the frequency drops to less than once a week. "These results may reflect a lessened interest by women, by men, or most likely by both." Unsurprisingly, sexual satisfaction ratings decline with frequency of sex. More unsurprisingly, the arrival of a baby kills the sex life. Married couples with baby, after less than three years, have sex less than a third as often as they did during the first year of marriage.
Lowered Commitment. Men and women complain that their partners show less interest in them, and less frequently express their love as time goes by. Women complain that their husbands don't express their love, don't listen to them when the talk, and ignore their feelings, even during just the first four years of marriage. Men complain about these things much less often, though it's unclear if that's due to men being less giving, or less sensitive to not receiving. Or both. The thing that men do complain about over time is their wife demanding more of their time. 22% of newlywed men say this, compared to 36% of fourth year husbands. Women do not share this complaint; only 8% voice it by the fourth year of marriage.
It's also clear that men spend less time, effort, and expense to please their wives, and are less vigilant and potentially violent in guarding them, as the women age. Men less often make threats and commit acts of violence on older wives, but they bring them flowers and tell them they love them less often, too. This also differs between the sexes; women remain just as protective of their husbands through the 30s and 40s, since the man's value as a resource provider is just as high as it was earlier, if not higher. Obvious changes in male guarding can also be seen when their wives are pregnant; men become less concerned with their wives' whereabouts, and behaviors that would cause acute jealousy at other times are not remarked upon.
Changes in Frequency of Extramarital Affairs. Discussion of this topic is made difficult by the unwillingness of subjects to provide honest answers. Questions on this subject were the ones most often not answered during Kinsey's initial surveys in the 1950s, and there remains a high reticence to discuss it to this day. Most researchers contend that extramarital affairs are systematically undercounted. Kinsey estimated that his figures were at least 10% too low. A large study (750 spouses) in 1974 resulted in 30% of the subjects admitting to cheating when initially questioned, and another 30% admitted it during subsequent "intensive scrutiny." Yes, that's a 60% cheat rate.
Whatever the actual percentage, the incidence of cheating is clearly tied to age. Women cheat rates by age:
16-20: 6%.
22-25: 9%
26-30: 14%
31-40: 17%
41-50: No number. Rapid decline with age.
51-55: 6%
56-60: 4%
These figures are somewhat odd; since men find women most attractive in their early 20s, the likelihood of a woman cheating is clearly not tied that directly to the amount of attention she receives from men other than her husband. Buss offers several explanations, including a lower intensity of male guarding of spouses past their mid-20s, lower penalties (from the husband) for older women caught philandering, and female desire to test their value in the dating market (and possibly trade up) as their reproductive value begins to decline.
Motivations for affairs vary as well. Men are much more likely than women to say they cheated simply for sex, and women are much more likely to cheat due to love or emotional connection (72% to 51%). Men are more likely to cheat even when they say their marriage is happy (56% to 33% of women). Men are also much more interested in cheating. In one 1985 study, 48% of American men expressed a desire for extramarital sex, compared to just 5% of women. (That 5% seems suspicious, since more than 5% of women cheat at every age lower than 56.) A 1970 survey of nearly 1500 men and women found that 72% of men, but only 27% of women, admitted to sometimes desiring extramarital sex. A 1971 study in Germany found similar figures: 46% of married men but only 6% of married women said they would take advantage of a casual sexual opportunity if one were available. These figures are borne out in practice, as nearly as can be determined. For 16-20 year olds, Kinsey found that 37% of men but only 6% of women had cheated. The incidence of affairs by men remains roughly steady throughout life, until declining at the elderly years.
These are not just one time things, either. Most of the men who cheat do it regularly, with prostitutes, mistresses, or side girlfriends. Extramarital sex comprises 20% of the average man's sexual outlets between 16-35. It rises to 26% from 36-40, 30% from 41-45, and 35% from 46-50. (I assume these figures are for men who are cheating, not an average for all married men, but the book doesn't make this clear.)
It's not known how these figures compare to polygamous societies. Logic would suggest that married men would have fewer affairs if they had several wives to alternate between, and that married women would have more with their husband's attention so often elsewhere, and so many single men around. However, such societies are usually quite repressive and controlling of women, so female opportunities should be lower, and penalties for being caught cheating (execution by hurled stones) higher, which would have to act as a disincentive. Apparently no one has dared try to conduct such a survey yet; at least none is mentioned in the text. Move to Saudi Arabia and go for it; publication of your research results is nearly guaranteed, assuming you survive long enough to write them up.
Menopause. This isn't mentioned in the book, but isn't this an odd word? I mean logically, pregnancy or getting into Olympic gymnast condition leads to menses "pause." What we call "menopause" should really be called, "menoend" or "menostop." At any rate, Buss points out an oddity of human menopause; how early in life it occurs. Most female animals die while still fecund, or live just 5% or 10% of their lives after they lose the ability to bear young. This is the case even in long-lived animals; only about 5% of elephants live until about age 55, but even then fertility is still about 50% of what it was at their peak, decades earlier. In contrast, most women go through menopause by age 50, and frequently live another 30 years. This is a genetic oddity, since human males can sire children while elderly, and since most animals live only to reproduce, and (might as well) die once they're not longer able to do so.
At one point in history, women were blamed for menopause, and it was thought they brought it on themselves with excessive luxury and sex. We now know that's not true, but it's still not clear why humans have evolved in this fashion. One theory is that better nutrition and medicine has artificially lengthened post-reproductive life. By this theory, our ancestors would seldom have lived past the reproductive age. There's little support for this though, since the dramatic increases in human longevity we've seen in modern days are largely due to decreased infant mortality. Humans have always lived into their 60s and 70s; it's just that far more people now survive childhood and make it past age 20 than used to, so the overall averages have increased. Also, consider the fact that a woman's reproductive capacity nosedives, while her other vital signs decline only slowly.
One theory is the "grandmother hypothesis," which states that menopause is an adaptation that prompts a shift from reproduction to parenting, grandparenting, and other forms of investing in kin. Older women build up useful stores of knowledge about children and childbirth, accumulate material resources, and can devote time to caring for others.
Another theory is that menopause is a trade off; rapid reproductive potential in early life for zero in later life. "Producing many high-quality children early may in effect wear out a woman's reproductive machinery; so that menopause is not in itself an adaptation but is rather an incidental byproduct of early and rapid breeding." The logic behind this is that a woman could only count on strong health and a resource-sharing mate for a decade or two, at best. Therefore, it was wise to pump out several children quickly, while a mate was around to assist in raising them. Chimps and other higher primates do not have their young in rapid succession, since there is no pair bonding and females must raise the children on their own. Such animals space out the births every few years for their entire adult lives, and do not experience menopause.
Nothing has been proven at this point, and it's likely there will never be any absolute answer; just competing theories with varying levels of support.
Changes in a Man's Worth. "While women's desirability as mates declines steeply with age, the same does not apply to men's." Buss boils it down to two key differences: 1) a man's resources and social status peak much later in life than a woman's reproductive value, and 2) a man's value as a mate varies much more than does a woman's. Men can have very high value and lose it all, go from low value to highly-eligible based on their financial or social status, and the difference in status between a billionaire and a beggar is enormous.
This is clearly illustrated in various tribal societies, where men in their teens or twenties seldom have the resources or political capital to marry one woman, much less take a second or third wife. Things are not much different in modern, cash-based societies. A large study in 1987 showed that men had negligible earning ability in their teens and early 20s. From 25-34 men were earning about 2/3 of their eventual peak, which was reached between 35-54.
As with most examples in this book, culture, modern society, and individual preferences allow for much more variety than we would see if humans simply followed their genetic logic, a fact every man below the age of 30 and not born to rich parents should be intensely grateful for. If women only married for resources and want of a stable mate, the average age difference would be at least a decade, and every well-off, balding, pot-bellied 50 year old divorced man would be living the sex life of a rock star. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your age/sex/wealth), women often vote with their hearts and not their heads -- there are plenty of penniless young couples, lots of women put off having children until well past their peak reproductive years, and other genetically suboptimal matings occur with great frequency.
Earlier Death of Men. Men die faster and earlier than do women in all societies and cultures. American men live 6 to 8 years less, on average, than do women, are more susceptible to disease, have a 30% higher mortality rate from accidents during their first four years of life, and a 400% higher mortality rate from accidents before adulthood. Men are 3x more likely to be murdered, more likely to commit suicide, and from 16-28 men have a mortality rate 200% higher than that of women. These facts are not accidents or coincidences, and they in fact stem directly from male sexual psychology. Men take more risks and compete much more vigorously, and this is true across much of the animal kingdom. Everyone is familiar with scenes of male deer, sheep, goats, lions, etc, bashing heads, wrestling, chasing, attacking, and otherwise struggling with each other, while the females of the species sit around, grazing contentedly and waiting to see who comes out on top. As a rule, throughout the animal kingdom, the more polygynous the mating system, the great the differences between the sexes in terms of mortality. Polygynous mating selects for males who take risks -- risks in competing with other males, risks in securing the resources desired by females, and risks in exposing themselves while pursing and courting females.
Most humans do not live in a polygynous culture, but even in Western Civilization, the reproductive stakes are higher for men than for women. Buss makes this clear with some amazing stats. In America, in 1988:
29 year olds who had never been married: 43% of men and 29% of women.
34 year olds who had never been married: 25% of men and 16% of women.
True, reproduction is less and less limited by the bonds of matrimony, but I doubt the relative figures would change a great deal if we were talking about what % of women had given birth, vs. what % of men had fathered a child. And the stats skew like this despite the fact that women outnumber men at those ages. Clearly some men are outcompeting their fellow males, and taking more than their share of women. It's even worse in polygamous tribes, where there are literally zero unmarried women, and many men consigned to bachelorhood.
Furthermore, the competition and death rate amongst men is not evenly-distributed. Men with fewer resources and commensurately lower odds of mating are much more likely to engage in risky activities. Figures for homicides in Detroit in 1972 bear this out: 41% of adult male murderers were unemployed, compared to an 11% unemployment rate citywide. Also, 69% of the male victims and 73% of the male killers were unmarried, compared to a 43% unmarried rate in the city. This figures seem a bit cherrypicked, and I don't think guys getting shot robbing liquor stores or selling drugs can really be directly compared to male red-horned deer dying while jousting for female access, but it's not an entirely different situation.
The Marriage Squeeze. Despite the fact that more women than men get married, (the same men marry multiple times), there are always more unmarried women than men, in every age group. Men die earlier, die more often, emigrate more frequently, die in wars, are incarcerated more often, and so on. The situation is even worse for black women in the United States. Because there are more boy babies than girl babies, the women are in the minority for a time, but due to higher male incarceration and death rates, that doesn't last. Among black Americans, there are 108 adolescent males for every 100 adolescent females. A wise woman would pick then, and stick with her choice, because by the time she's 26-28 there will be 80 men for every 100 women, and by 38-42 there are only 62 available men for every 100 women. By 60 there are around 40 men for every 100 women.
The numbers do not tail off so rapidly for women of other ethnic groups, but across the board, women who wait to marry find it difficult, and women who get divorced are in even more dire straits. The numerical handicaps are supplemented by gender differences, since eligible 50 year old men will marry 25 year old women, if they can pull it off. The same is very seldom true of 50 year old women. A 1979 study in Canada found a great dissimilarity in remarriage rates.
Divorced men, ages 20-24: 83% will remarry.
Divorced men, ages 25-29: 89% will remarry.
Divorced women, ages 20-24: 61% will remarry.
Divorced women, ages 25-29: 40% will remarry.
These figures are representative worldwide, and they skew even further at older ages. Past the age of 50, men are exponentially more likely to remarry. Four times as likely in Egypt. Nine times more likely in Ecuador. Nineteen times more likely in Tunisia.
In closing, Buss points out that while most humans want to mate for a lifetime, few are so lucky. This isn't surprising; humans aren't very well suited for lifetime compatibility, with what men want and what women want diverging so often and so widely. Our physical processes are in no way complimentary either; women hit puberty earlier than boys, then lose the ability to reproduce decades sooner. And they know it.The urgency that some childless women feel as their remaining years of potential reproduction wane--the increasingly loud ticking of the biological clock--is not caused by an arbitrary custom dictated by a particular culture, but rather reflects a psychological mechanism attuned to reproductive reality.
Married couples start out great, with lots of sex, but the amount declines steadily, due largely to a man's genetics causing him to grow tired of the same partner, and to find her less attractive as she ages. With less attention paid to her, and less affection given, wives get bored and begin to cheat more as they age; though they never practice infidelity at anywhere near the rates their husbands do. "Long attributed by traditional scientists to the fragile male ego, to psychosexual immaturity, to 'male menopause,' or to a culture of youth, men's effort to mate with younger women as they age instead reflects a universal desire that has a long evolutionary history."
With all these issues, it's remarkable that somewhere near 50% of marriages do last "'til death do them part." This fact demonstrates how completely humans can triumph over their biological urges, if they put their minds to it. (And overlook their spouse's occasional strayings.)
Chapter Ten: Harmony Between the Sexes
Much of this chapter serves as a summary of what's come before. It starts off with a few paragraphs that essentially serve as a disclaimer for the entire book. Genetics are not fate. Humans can choose their own destinies. Men almost always desire it, but can resist seizing younger poontang. Women can love men who aren't great providers. And so forth. This isn't just a sop to the critics, but an introduction to Buss' version of harmonious living; each spouse learning to do things their partner will appreciate, or at least managing to resist their genetic urges to upgrade or order out when things (inevitably) don't go quite so well.
Differences Between the Sexes. Men and women have very different wants and desires. "To assume that men and women are psychologically the same, as was generally done in traditional social science, goes against what is now known about our evolved sexual psychology." Men and women differ in the qualities they desire in a mate, in their expectations for behavior in marriage, in their economic priorities, and so on. Some people rail against these differences, denying that they exist or wishing that they would cease to exist. But wishes and denial will not make psychologically sex differences disappear, any more than they will make beard growth or breast development disappear. Harmony between men and women will be approached only when these denials are swept away and we squarely confront the different desires of each sex.
A Feminist Viewpoint. Buss clearly enjoys a conundrum in this section. He points out that most feminists object to patriarchy; the male oppression of women through their control of resources. And yet, one of the major reasons men strive so vigorously to control resources is... because women select men with money. "Ancestral men who failed to acquire such resources failed to attract women as mates." He says, no doubt itching to add, "Pwned, you bra burners!"
Women have always, and will almost certainly continue to, prefer men with more resources. This is found cross culturally, in every society. "In any given year, the men whom women marry earn more than men of he same age whom women do not marry." Buss isn't arguing with or disagreeing with feminists; he's fully in agreement that men try to control resources and dominate women; he just stresses that this is due to genetics, and that women continue to reinforce that sort of behavior by their mate selection habits.
Diversity in Mating Strategies. Scientists long thought that men and women were largely identical in their mating strategies and interests. Women were thought to be almost entirely passive and interested only in a long term, monogamous relationship. We now know that this is not true, and there seem to be some clear evolutionary trends acting on women's mate selection criteria.The fact that women who are engaged in casual sex as opposed to committed mating change their mating desires to favor a man's extravagant life style and physical attractiveness tells us that women have specific psychological mechanisms designed for temporary mating. The fact that women who have extramarital affairs choose men who are higher in status than their husbands tells us that women have specific psychological mechanisms designed for temporary mating. And the fact that women shift to brief liaisons under predictable circumstances, such as a dearth of men capable of investing in them or an unfavorable ratio of women to men, tells us that women have specific psychological mechanisms designed for temporary mating.
Competition and Conflict in the Mating Arena. This section begins with a quote, "An unpleasant act of human mating is that desirable partners are always outnumbered by those who desire them." That's true, but it's only unpleasant if you're not one of the "desirable partners," I'd think. Men with high resources are desired by many women, but only the most attractive succeed. Beautiful women are desired by many men, but the women can pick only the best from their many suitors. "The combined qualities of kindness, intelligence, dependability, athleticism, looks, and economic prospects occur in the same person only rarely. Most of us must settle for someone who has less than the full complement of desirable characteristics." Thus is competition and conflict born.
Cooperation Between the Sexes. For all the conflict we deal with, men and women have always had to depend on each other to pass their genes onto the next generation. Each gender gains some benefits from infidelity, but each takes great risks in the process. Committed partners can give each other more and more valuable benefits than any series of casual sexual encounters. We just need to find a partner who will fulfill our needs, and allow us to fulfill theirs.Labels: psychology, the evolution of desire
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Book Review: The Evolution of Desire, Chapter Seven
Remember how last time I said these chapter summaries would start getting briefer? Um... yeah. This one might be the longest yet. It's full of really good stuff though, especially the info about why men tend to keep pursuing women who have rejected them, and why men are so confused when those women get upset by their continued affections. Male and female psychology and genetic urges could not be more poorly designed for peaceful coexistence in that arena.
For next time, the next three chapters in the book are much less interesting (to me) than the first seven, so I'll go over those much more quickly, before taking more time on chapter 11, Women's Hidden Sexual Strategies, since it's got some very juicy stuff. And, since there are only 12 chapters in the book, this write up will actually come to an end. Eventually...
Previous chapters
covered here.
Chapter Seven: Sexual ConflictThis chapter covers conflict between the sexes, or conflict caused by sexual desires, such as men competing to date the same woman. It's not outright "sexual conflict," like say, begging your wife for non-
surprise buttsecks. As Buss explains, "Conflict between the sexes is best understood in the broader context of social conflict. Social conflict occurs whenever one person interferes with the achievement of the goal o the other person."
Men compete over desirable women, women compete over eligible men, men want sex without putting in the requisite investment of resources, and so forth. The key aspect of these situations is that conflict is a negative. It serves no beneficial genetic purpose to get into fights over potential mates, or with a desired member of the opposite sex. Rather, conflict is an often unavoidable result of conflicting sexual goals. That humans get into such difficult conflicts is evidence that the goals are well worth fighting over, and humans have evolved numerous strategies to solve or avoid time and energy-wasting conflicts.
The most basic male vs. female conflict is over sexual access. Men want sex without spending a great deal of time or resources to obtain it, and they grow angry when their desires are denied. Women want a man to invest time and resources in exchange for reproductive access, and they grow angry when men are disinclined to cooperate. As always, this basic scenario is very caveman in its implications and origins, and here, as throughout the book, Buss glosses over or ignores the conscious actions and thoughts of actual human beings.
This tendency is easy to object to, but the book's argument are not intended to be bulletproof. Modern humans can think and choose to act counter to their instincts, and no one does what their genetics tells them to do all the time. However, free will aside, it's useful to consider the base evolutionary urges that remain within us, if only to understand why we often have to work so hard to resist doing things we know are stupid or pointless. So while it's easy to think of real people going against most of the arguments made in this book, they're best taken as general species-wide guidelines, rather than inescapable commandments chiseled into the stone of your genetic code.
Sexual Accessibility. Perceived desirability is an interesting component of sexual interaction, and one that frequently leads to conflict. Putting it simply, people who are hotter can command a higher quality partner; a fact that's seldom greeted enthusiastically by the lower quality partners they reject.
A woman who frequents singles bars reports that she is sometimes approached by a beer-drinking, T-shirted, baseball-capped, stubble-faced truck drivers or construction workers who ask her to dance. When she declines, the men sometimes get verbally abusive, saying, for example, "What's the matter bitch, I'm not good enough for you?" Although she simply turns her back, that is precisely what she thinks; they are not good enough for her. Her unspoken message is that she can obtain someone better, given her own desirability, and this message infuriates the rebuffed men. Differences between people's perceptions of their value as mates cause conflict.
Adding to this problem is the fact that men sometimes (usually) infer sexual interest when it does not exist. A lab experiment demonstrated this by showing volunteers a short movie of a female student asking a male professor for extra time to finish a paper. Neither actor acts flirtatious or provocative in the movie, though they behave in a friendly manner. Both men and women perceived friendliness in the female student's behavior, but most men thought she was behaving somewhat seductively, while almost none of the female viewers came to that conclusion.
Men apparently interpret simple friendliness and mere smiling by women as indicating some level of sexual interest, even when women report no such interest... When in doubt, men seem to infer sexual interest... If over evolutionary history even a tiny fraction of these "misperceptions" led to sex, then men would have evolved lower thresholds for inferring women's sexual interest.
Naturally, evolution conditioned women to respond to this tendency, and not just with disgust and lesbianism. No, women know instinctively that they can obtain special treatment by acting friendly or flirting, and while not every woman does this, quite a few do, at least some of the time. This obviously leads to sexual conflict, as men resent what they see as women leading them on, while women resent men being pushy in their sexual demands. They really resent it: in one study, researchers asked women to evaluate 147 potentially upsetting actions on a 1-7 scale. Women rated sexual aggression at 6.50; no other kinds of acts, including verbal abuse and nonsexual physical abuse, were rated as highly.
The real kicker comes when considering the male reaction to the same act. Men rated unexpected sexual aggression on the part of women at just 3.02, or "lightly upsetting," and many men spontaneously wrote on the margin of the survey that they would in fact welcome such behavior from a woman. It's not that men enjoy being abused; they find verbal abuse and physical abuse just as upsetting as women do. It's that heterosexual men don't seem to even acknowledge that there is such a thing as unwanted sexual aggression, at least from a woman. Furthermore, men greatly
underestimate how upsetting women find their sexual aggression, while women greatly
overestimate how upsetting men find such acts when perpetrated by women.
It's a perfect storm of overlapping and conflicting beliefs about sexual persuasion. Men think women are asking for sex when they're not, and men don't think women really mind being pressed for sex, since most men would welcome that behavior from a woman. In fact, women are extremely upset by sexual aggression, and have no idea why men don't understand, since they think that men must be upset by it as well. It would be hard to create a system more perfectly designed to create conflict and communication difficulties. (Though I think Microsoft has managed it once or twice.)
I found this section of the book fascinating and enlightening, and but I think it would be even more useful for women. I couldn't count how many conversations I've had with female friends, including several recent ones with the IG, in which they asked me why guys were always pushing them for sex, why guys couldn't take a hint that they weren't interested, why guys expected them to put up with unwanted touching and other signs of affection, etc. And here's the answer: men really want it, but moreover men think women want it, or at least that they won't mind it, since from a man's frame of reference, he knows he'd love it if a woman did that to him. Furthermore, the more desperate to impress a man grows, the more likely he is to use a behavior that will cause the maximum offense to the woman he uses it on. It's logical in his brain; he's just doing to her what he'd most like her to do to him. Doesn't usually work out too well in reality, much to the annoyance of the woman and confusion of the man.
Humans can, of course, learn from experience, and grow to understand that the other gender wants different things. Also, some guys are insensitive, or outright assholes/pigs, and some women are teases/flirts, intentionally or otherwise, but both genders can be somewhat excused their incomprehension by the fact that our instinctual comprehension of the these delicate issues actually leads us in exactly the wrong direction. Understanding what the other gender wants and means in this area is a learned skill, and a tricky one to learn, since it goes so counter to our own wants and desires.
Worse yet, in this one the man is always going to be the metaphorical (and literal) bad guy. He will offend without meaning to, not understand why he's offending, and feel resentful and confused when offense is taken over something he wouldn't be offended by. Not only do women not inflict this type of unknowing offense, they might not even be capable of doing so. After all, women are offended by sexual aggression, so they expect that a man will be as well. Therefore, they are 1) would be much less likely to act in that fashion, and even if they do, they 2) wouldn't be surprised if/when it caused offense, which 3) it's highly unlikely to, since men welcome that sort of behavior and find it flattering, even if they choose not to take advantage of the opportunity.
Another source of conflict is sexual withholding. Men frequently complain that women say no to sex, tease and flirt without following through, and so on. These behaviors bother men quite a bit, rating a 5.03 on the 1-7 scale, substantially higher than women judge the upset (4.29). There's an evolutionary logic to sexual withholding, of course. There's an evolutionary logic to everything, according to this book. In this case, Buss points out that scarcity increases the value of anything. Including sex. By withholding sex from some men and awarding it to others, women create incentives for men to compete for sexual access. An individual woman can also boost her own perceived desirability by withholding sex, since more desirable women tend to be more selective about their sexual favors. Finally, withholding sex can make a man view a woman as a potential mate, rather than just a casual sex partner, due to the associations between female promiscuity and long term male attraction (discussed in earlier chapters).
Emotional Commitment. The level of commitment in a relationship is another source of conflict. Put simply, a woman wants a man to expend his total effort and resources on her. A man wants to expend as few as he can to keep her happy, while reserving the rest to devote to obtaining other mating opportunities or enhancing his social status. Resources, in this example, are not merely monetary, but emotional, temporal, and more.
One of the most common complaints by women is that their partners do not express their emotions freely. (Women assume those free emotions would be to their liking, obviously. If a man is hiding the fact that he's sick of her and wants her to die, freely expressing that would probably be less welcomed.) This is largely a female complaint; 24% of newlywed men complain about it, compared to 45% of newlywed women. The numbers increase rapidly during a relationship; by the 4th year of marriage, 59% of women complain that men ignore their feelings, compared to just 32% of men. (The possibility/likelihood that these figures reflect reality; that 32% of women and 59% of men really do ignore their spouse's feelings by the 4th year of marriage, isn't addressed by the author. It doesn't especially matter though, since what counts in this case is whether the spouse perceived that they're being ignored, right or wrong.)
Cutting to the genetic aspect of things, Buss speculates on why this is. What are the benefits and liabilities of expressing one's emotions, from the male and female POV? One analogy provided is of a poker player. Men, in this view, are withholding their true feelings since they may be considering other sexual/reproductive options. After all, men are physically capable of fathering numerous children in short order, while women are much more limited in that capability. A woman who grants the wrong man reproductive access may have to live with that mistake for years, so it's strongly in a woman's interest to accurately assess her man's intentions. This requirement has caused further adaptations, turning women into much more intuitive psychologists. Women report spending far more time than men sifting through memories, evaluating what their partners said and trying to figure what he really meant by it, and prodding him to express himself clearly and honestly. The flip side of this is that while women complain about men being emotionally constricted, men feel that women are moody and unpredictable. (Reciprocal behaviors that are caused by the women trying too hard to figure out the uncommunicative men.)
Moodiness doesn't exist in a vacuum, of course. Men interested in preserving a relationship must invest time and emotional effort in trying to cheer up or reassure a vexed wife. Women may also use moodiness and other minor emotional upsets to test a man's continuing interest and emotional attachment to her.
Investment of Resources. Resources include money, but also things like time, emotional investments, and energy. "Among their common complaints are that men do not spend enough time with them, fail to call when they say they will, show up late, and cancel dates or other arrangements at the last minute." Objections such as these are far more common in men than women; 38% of dating women but just 12% of dating men complain that their partners sometimes fail to call when they say they will. (Again, it's not made clear if these facts reflect reality, or if women are just much more sensitive to being stood up on a date. And again, it doesn't really matter, since the key issue is how people tend to feel about perceived behaviors. I'm sure everyone has found out first hand just how well it works when you tell your partner to stop being so sensitive.)
I read this and expected Buss to speculate as to the evolutionary origins of the behavior. If in fact men do fail to call more often than women, why? Is there some adaptive purpose? Are men doing it semi-consciously as a way to spar with the tendency of women to flirt and tease, or to turn moody and shut men out? Perhaps, but it's not an issue Buss addresses. Instead, he goes right to the negative; men are distant because they're not that into the woman, and are conserving their resources, or spending them elsewhere.
Another possibility is that men and women just have very different needs in this area. Women want men to be with them more often than men want. That would follow reproductive logic; the man doesn't need to be there all the time, just often enough to have sex and be sure the woman is not straying on him, whereas the woman wants the man around much more often, to ensure that he's not straying or spending his resources on other women. Whatever the reason, 41% of newlywed women say their partner doesn't spend enough time with them, compared to just 4% of newlywed men. Naturally, there's a flip side to this coin. Men are far more likely to say their partners are clingy and dependent on them. Among married men, 36% complain that their wives demand too much of their time, compared to only 7% of married women.
Money is a factor as well, of course. More than 72% of couples fight about money at least once a year, though perhaps surprisingly, the issue of allocation is far more contentious than the total amount. Men frequently complain that women spend too much money on clothing; 26% of men voice this concern by the 4th year of marriage, compared to only 7% of women. The sexes are identical in one aspect though; by the 4th year of marriage, around 1/3 of men and women say their spouse spends too much money in general.
Deception. The most common form of deception by men is exaggeration of affection. As
Chef once sung:
When a man loves a woman, and a woman loves a man,
Actually, sometimes a man doesn't love a woman, but…he acts like he does, in order to get some action...
In a survey of 112 college men, 71% admitted to having exaggerated the depth of their feelings for a woman in order to have sex with her, while the other 29% said she was so drunk they didn't even have to lie. (I made up that 29% part, but you know it's true.) When women were asked if men had done this to them, 97% of them said yes. (Buss doesn't include any data on what percent of the time it worked.)
Lying about this isn't such a problem amongst married couples, but women still need to be vigilant since preserving their relationship is such a high stakes game, especially if they've already had children with the man. Men have high stakes as well, but amongst our ancestors, the man who had had children with a woman had essentially already won. Women needed to keep the man around, and they could raise their odds of this by picking the right man in the first place. To that end, women are far more active in trying to look into the man's character. Women report spending far more time analyzing their man's behaviors and motivations, and often discuss these with their female friends. Men report this behavior far less often.
While women are more concerned with a man's deception in emotional matters, men place the utmost importance on knowing about a woman's age and sexual history. Since sexual infidelity is the biggest worry for men, and reproductive fitness is the most important attribute in a mate, men tend to be highly observant of signs of age or loss of health, as well as inquisitive and investigative into a woman's past sexual history, since a promiscuous past can be a sign of a straying future.
Abuse. Unsurprisingly, physical and verbal abuse of women by their men is usually connected to infidelity, or at least the man's fears about it. Buss cites various studies from Canada and the US and finds a very high correlation between male accusations of infidelity, and abuse. Most of the men in these studies were determined to be "controlling," and "jealous." The women leaving the house, maintaining friendships with other men or women, or behaving in ways their husbands couldn't control set off morbid jealousy and incidents of violence.
It's pretty clear, from what's come before in the book, where Buss will go with this. What genetic purpose can wife-beating serve? Where does the urge come from? That second one is pretty easy to figure, actually. The studies show that upwards of 90% of abusive husbands cite fears that their wives are being unfaithful, and this book has provided plenty of evidence that infidelity is the trait men most dislike and fear in their wives. So is wife-beating just an overreaction to fears of infidelity? Fears that come about from the genetic male need to be certain that his mate's offspring are his? Perhaps, but why are some men comfortable letting their wives live their own lives, while other men are terrified into becoming control freaks? And why does their fear turn into violence? Isn't that likely to be a maladaptive solution to the problem; more likely to drive the woman away than to force her to curtail her infidelities? (Especially if the infidelities are entirely in the head of the jealous husband.)
Buss offers no solutions or explanations. He does point out that most abusers flash from anger to profuse apologies, "crying, pleading, and promising that never again will they inflict such costs. These actions may be attempts to void the risks of defection inherent in using abuse as a tactic of control."
Sexual Harassment. Men are far more likely to be the harassers, and they're far more likely to harass young, attractive women. Not exactly a shocking revelation there, but someone had to tally up the statistics to prove it, I guess. In a study of 10,644 federal employees, 42% of women and 15% of men had experienced sexual harassment at some point in their careers. As for actual case filings, in two years in Illinois 76 women and 5 men filed complaints. In Canada, 93 women and 2 men filed sexual harassment cases. Hugely disproportionate numbers, but Buss points out an interesting fact; given that women are far more likely than men to be seriously offended by unwanted sexual attention, it's quite possible that something a man would laugh off or even be flattered by would infuriate a woman. As always, he means not to excuse or apologize for bad behavior, but to analyze it in genetic, behavioral terms.
Reactions to persistent attention vary by the identity of the pursuer too, of course. In one study women ranked how upset they'd be with a man's repeated attempts to date them on the usual 1-7 scale. Construction workers (4.4), garbage collectors (4.32), and gas station attendants (4.13) better learn to take no for an answer. Meanwhile, rock stars (2.71), pre-med students (2.65), and graduate students (2.80) can ask every day. (Man, my grad school aspirations are looking better every day!) The type of attention affects things greatly, too. Sexual overtures, such as inappropriate touching, were judged very harshly. In contrast, romantic or friendly approaches, such as "a co-worker telling a woman that he sincerely likes her and would like to have a coffee with her after work was judged to be only a 1.5, where a 1.0 signified no harassment at all."
(That's cute and all, but um... who has coffee after work? It's late, you're hungry, and you need to get the dry cleaning on the way home. Still, apparently it's inoffensive to make the invitation, so keep that one in mind, guys, if you want a date idea that will almost surely be declined, but at least won't piss her off.)
Rape. Buss defines rape as "the use of force, or threat to use force, to obtain sexual intercourse." The stereotype of rape, a stereotype that seems to mostly exist in the mind's of anti-feminists of both genders, is the "she was asking for it" fallacy. Some drunken bimbos in a miniskirt stumbling down a dark alleys to her inevitable doom. In reality, the vast majority of rapes are committed by men the women know; most often their husbands or boyfriends.
One study found that almost 15% of college women had experienced unwanted sexual intercourse in the context of dating situations. Another study of 347 women found that 63% of all instances of sexual victimization were perpetrated by dates, lovers, husbands, or de facto partners. The most extensive study of rape in marriage found that of nearly a thousand married women, 14% had been raped by their husbands.
When it comes to heterosexual rape, men are almost always the perpetrators, and women almost always the victims. The question then, is "whether rape represents an evolved sexual strategy of men, or is better understood as a horrifying side effect of men's general sexual strategy of seeking low-cost casual sex." After all, rape is quite common in the animal world, where it is almost always found in the context of attempted impregnation. It's also clear that men are aroused by sexual activity of all types. Lab tests have exposed men to audio and visual displays of consensual and non-consensual sexual activity, and the men have usually become aroused by both. "Men apparently are sexually aroused when exposed to sexual scenes, whether or not consent is involved, although other conditions, such as the presence of violence and a disgust reaction from the woman, appear to inhibit the sexual arousal of the men."
These studies don't prove the question about rape being an evolved sexual strategy or a side effect, t