Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Women are all the same - Part V

In the previous four posts in the series, I went from personal anecdotes to scientific evidence gathered at speed dating events to prove my point that when it comes to sex and love, all women want the same (men) and hence behave like they're all one and the same.

Today, we will take a broader look and delve into anthropological evidence gathered in various cultures around the globe (click here for the scientific reference that I'll be drawing from).

Biologists like to compare people across different cultures for commonalities. Anything that humans share across the vast variety of environments that we populated is a strong hint at a genetic predisposition. And this is particularly true for tribes that no contact with Western civilization, such as the the Ache in Paraquay. 

Researchers found that in the "pre-contact era", love life in this tribe consisted of love marriages by female choice. They were classic serial monogamists, with women accumulating up to ten marriages over the course of a lifetime. And if you read any books on human evolution, you might know that this what most scientist believe life was like during the early tens of thousands of years of human evolution (you know, the time when the genes that influence our behavior today have been selected).

So what fancies women that have never read an issue of Cosmo or marveled at a movie staring Clooney or Pitt? Here is an interesting excerpt from an interview by one of the anthropologists who visited the tribe (referring to the pre-contact era):

Q: What kind of man could get many women, what kind did women love?
A: A man needed to be strong. ... Women don't like men who love to hit others. I mean a strong man. ... a small or a large man, but he had to be strong. ... A "good man" is a man whom women love."

It is clear. She doesn't like a weak man. No insecure guy (who needs to prove something in fights) or wuss, please. It doesn't matter what he looks like, but if he is desired by other women, that is just perfect. Sound familiar?

Here is another interesting case: China.

Why? China instantiated a marriage law in 1950 (revised in 1987) that "stipulates the criteria by which ... to chose mates: personal compatibility, political attitudes, and judgment of character."
Sounds good, doesn't it? It has the words written "romantic love" written all over it.
 "Criteria deemed inappropriate, in contrast, are wealth, good looks, sexual attractiveness, and family connections."

If you have ever been to China, you will have noticed that this law has far reaching implications. It is arguably the only country in the world where women do not seem to care about their looks (don't even bother telling me about the one exception you might have experienced). In the words of the researchers this is due to a "society where governmental structures and regulations support equality for women, suppress the glorification of female beauty ... and devalue the notion of wealth."

So, do Chinese men care less about female youth and beauty and select women for their smarts and charm? Do Chinese women care less about a man's status and more about his personality?

Not so, say the people who studied their actual mate choice. Chinese men were found to rate "good looks" as nearly all important in women, while Chinese girls preferred a man's job and income, class label, family and social connections and pretty much anything else higher than what he looked like. In the eyes of the researchers this "parallels the sex-differentiated rank-ordering of these characteristics reported for college students in the United States and, indeed, for samples of participants from around the world."

Are we really all the same? What about the level of education or socioeconomic class? Don't these things matter when it comes to selecting partners? It turns out they do. But not as you might have expected. When richer college kids are interviewed, the data points in one common direction: "an exaggeration of the expected sex differences". In other words, richer guys shoot for even more beautiful women while women with material resources want even higher status males.

Take a moment to think about what this means for our society. When feminism came along in the sixties, people believed that "the more sex-egalitarian our society becomes, and the more resources are held by women, the less interested women will be in status."
And the exact opposite is true!
Instead of enabling women to find "true love" by focusing on a man's character, they now feel even more gina tingling for the few men at the top of the sexual food chain while remaining ice cold for the common foot folks that once made the staple of their marriage market.

So, women all over the world agree: "the least physically attractive man [is] more acceptable than the most physically attractive man to have coffee with, to date, to have sex with, to marry ..., as long as he was depicted [of high social status]."
In other words, status is king.
The looks of a man are less than secondary. They do not matter. At all. And neither does his personality or zodiac sign. What women really care for is what he stands for (and as one night stands are concerned - researchers found that "requirements for status ... either remain the same or increase" when short term mating is concerned).

The divide between the genders when it comes to sexual preference is so deep and universal, that we all share disbelief as to how important these things are for the other sex: Men worry about their hair loss while women are bragging about their social status and desirability. It shows that time and again, there is only one good dating advice:
Don't listen to what people say, observe what they do.

22 comments:

  1. status is so important you actually have no clue to how important it is.

    p.s. if all women are the same (when it comes to sex or whatever)... am I the only one to whom that sounds kinda boring and... well, why bother?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Question:
    What are the best ways for a young man to build status instead of imitating it via game?

    I want to get laid now and when I'm 60, and the only way to do that is to have built lasting status. Hell, even athletes and performers don't get laid in their 60s, but politicians do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the movie "Big Fish", the thwarted seductress tells the protagonist: "To your father, there are only two women in the world: your mother, and everyone else." More and more, it seems like she was overestimating that count.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A well reasoned argument.

    Just baffles me how people cannot grasp something as seemingly simple as this.

    But when you have a country where more than half the populace doesn't accept the fact of evolution to begin with, there isn't much hope.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Don't listen to what people say, observe what they do." - A true statement, however abiding by that statement from my observations I have to say status is only king for the 80% of "non-alpha" men. The 20% of "alpha" men make gina-tingle regardless. You pretty much described the secondary mate selection process.

    Process 1 = make babies (Mr. Alpha / Mr. Genetics, Purely based on looks just like male mate selection)

    Process 2 = support babies (Mr. Beta) - this is where they select for status.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to say status is only king for the 80% of "non-alpha" men. The 20% of "alpha" men make gina-tingle regardless.

    Au contraire.

    We are talking passed each other due to a common misunderstanding. I have blogged about it before.

    Societal status (i.e. a man's professional position) is not necessarily linked to social status (the influence he has on other people).

    Providers get selected for their societal status because they help provide for family.

    Alpha males are selected for their high social status because they help create "sexy sons".

    Women do sometimes confuse the too (and they often are correlated), but it still is a crucial distinction to make.

    It seems inconceivable to most men, but a good looking, nerdy, well, law abiding earning chief engineer is far less sexy than the ugly, drug addicted bouncer without a high school diploma.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Despite my feminist-socialist beliefs, I readily accept reveled preferences trump idle statements. People can tell pollsters they're concerned about global warming and world poverty, but it doesn't mean bupkis unless and until they're willing to make the sacrifices.

    The problem that I have with a lot of these discussions about "Game" is that alpha becomes whatever works, and I think this post over-states the case. I'm sure you'll tell me if this straw man, but...

    If status matters that much then 70-80 year-old plus billionaires and movie stars should get more attention than 55 year-old multi-millionaires, all things being equal. I don't travel in those circles, but I'm guessing it does not work that way.

    The guy who still gets recognized from his days playing a quirky character on a failed TV show crushes more pussy than Corky from LIFE GOES ON.

    The guy who inspired the Dustin Hoffman character in RAIN MAN reportedly went on prestigious lecture tours all around the world, probably speaking to more than a million people. Again, I doubt he does any better than no-name motivational speakers, or not-famous comedians.

    Generally speaking wealth is viewed as an indicator of ability or talent. You made a millions of dollars because you possess the type-A personality of getting what he wants. But Corky didn't persevere and win the role for trying really hard. He got it because he's retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If status matters that much then 70-80 year-old plus billionaires and movie stars should get more attention than 55 year-old multi-millionaires, all things being equal.

    See my comment above. "Status" is not something you have. It is something you do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think you've stepped far outside of your area of expertise with this post. Your conclusions may be sound but I'm not convinced that you've adequately supported them with your premise.

    First of all, are you seriously asserting that most pre-modern societies were run on matrilineal lines? If so, this is so far outside of conventional anthropological consensus that it can safely be deemed ridiculous. Apologies if I've misread you on this.

    Second, you seem to be asserting two completely contradictory things about Chinese society: Women don't care about appearance because the government told them it wasn't important and Men still care about appearance despite the government telling them not to. If men actually care about appearance, then women will too, government policy or not because women aren't stupid.

    As for personal experience, speaking as someone who has been to China on multiple occasions for months at a time, it has never even vaguely been alluded to me that, in Chinese society, a woman is not meant to care about her appearance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think you've stepped far outside of your area of expertise with this post.

    No doubt, I did.

    are you seriously asserting that most pre-modern societies were run on matrilineal lines

    No, I said that they were dominated by serial monogamy (until the agricultural age at least). Here is a reference: Small, Meredith F., What’s Love Got to Do With It? The Evolution of Human Mating, 1995, Anchor Books

    If men actually care about appearance, then women will too, government policy or not

    That depends on the amount indoctrination and policing of policies. But you are right, I actually have no idea in how far the Chinese Marriage Law affected their culture.

    So, you might be right that there is no difference in how far women style themselves between Asian countries. I'd be interested in learning more about that.

    My personal impression from traveling Asia is that Chinese women care far less about their clothing than Japanese or Korean women do. I have been told by both my Chinese and Japanese friends that my observation is based on a true cultural difference. But all of that is anecdotal evidence at best.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The looks of a man are less than secondary. They do not matter. At all.

    Isn't height part of looks? Being short is pretty much the most consistent physical trait that nearly all women agree makes a man per se (rather than conditionally) undesirable. Not a lack of facial attractiveness, not visible permanent injury. Height, or rather lack of it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. randian, - ladies can overlook the looks, but it would be a lie to say that looks don't matter. this is where the difference starts - there are different things in a person's appearance that matter to different women.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To clarify the view of status as something you do opposed to something you have. Consider the places where most people look for potential short or long time partners. It's bars and clubs for most of them. now think about two different males competing for one female. They look the same. The only difference is, one of them is a well educated, rich and successful engineer with polite manners. The other one is a thug, pimp or whatever.

    The first man has much to lose, he has to think about his job, the big project which has to be done next week, or he has to worry about the big lay off in his firm.

    The second man has to worry about, ...

    ... where my whores at ?

    Or he does not think at all, because his head is full of cocaine.

    Now just think about it, suppose the decent man talks to a woman he likes. He tells her about his job, how he likes his profession, the challenges, his dreams, etc. Then the thug enters the picture. He probably has two or three of his fellow gang members as wingman. He is a leader of man. He gives a fuck about anybody else in the location, because he's got a gun and is not afraid of jail. You know, it is considered cool in his circle. He behaves as if there is no tomorrow. As if there is no one who can match his might.

    So ask yourself, who will get the girl ? The boring provider whose skills are not needed anymore or the exciting thug, proving his worth every second, probably scaring the decent guy to hell with his stories about gun fights and street brawls.

    Also about chinese girls, speeking about the girls coming to our university, most of them really do not care about their looks. I think this is mostly because of the democraphic imbalance in china. There are significant more men than women on the dating market.

    Give them one or two years in germany and the ability to work in the university and they change faster than you can imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Status matters.....
    Buy a sailboat and wear a sailing cap.
    Watch what happens........

    ReplyDelete
  16. Everyone here is wrong, I'm a young guy about 23 and look even younger. I would never Cheat on my girlfriend if a hotter girl hit on me even if it's a supermodel. It's very rare to find a guy like me. You people are just fake, it does not matter if a girl is prettier or taller then my girl. You people are fools. That's why this world keeps getting worse because of fools like you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It also does not matter if the guy is rich or poor either. You date because you like them not because of money or taller body. All of you are complete fools. Careers don't matter either.

      Delete
  17. Searching for the Ultimate Dating Website? Join and find your perfect match.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you want your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (even if they're dating somebody else now) you must watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Text Your Ex Back?

    ReplyDelete
  19. If you'd like an alternative to randomly flirting with girls and trying to figure out the right thing to say...

    If you'd rather have women chase YOU, instead of spending your nights prowling around in filthy pubs and restaurants...

    Then I urge you to play this short video to uncover a weird secret that has the potential to get you your very own harem of beautiful women just 24 hours from now:

    FACEBOOK SEDUCTION SYSTEM!!!

    ReplyDelete