- #1
ZQrn
Since it was apparently off topic in the other thread and ''ve been dragging it', but it's not against the rules to discuss this subject on its own per se..
The case is ostensibly quite simple, the hypothesis that though many women say they like a caring male as a partner, they simply do not and lie to themselves and for the most part are subconsciously attracted to jerks.
The main argument is the argument of sexual selection. Say that you're a jerk who objectifies women, gets them pregnant, then dumps them to go after another female. It's an effective way to spread your genes, you'll have a lot of babies that share them and you need to invest little energy to raise them. It's not too unreasonable to assume that these kind of males have a certain viable evolutionary strategy and are thus plentifully there.
From the other side of the story, say you're a female that gets subconsciously drawn to these males, you will have their babies, some of them will be males who might inherit this behaviour and themselves have more daughters, who will carry your genes. Therefore, women who are, consciously or subconsciously, attracted to jerks that objectify them have more granddaughters, and thus the meme that causes this behaviour can be reasonably be expected to multiply. This is the theory behind it, the empirical information that corroborates it is:
For a start:
Herold & Milhausen (1999) found that 56% of 165 university women claimed to agree with the statement: "You may have heard the expression, 'Nice guys finish last.' In terms of dating, and sex, do you think women are less likely to have sex with men who are 'nice' than men who are 'not nice'?" A third view is that while "nice guys" may not be as successful at attracting women sexually, they may be sought after by women looking for long-term romantic relationships.
It's hard to call this theory obscure or fringe, it's at the very least some-what 'common knowledge' in the university women population. Another thing:
Another study indicates that "for brief affairs, women tend to prefer a dominating, powerful and promiscuous man". Further evidence appears in a 2005 study in Prague - "Since women can always get a man for a one-night stand, they gain an advantage if they find partners for child-rearing" [link]
Which corroborates the theory behind the hypothesis that this is due to evolved sexual selection. Indeed, women seem to have evolved to use the best of both worlds strategy in some aspect, use a jerkier guy to get the superior genetic material which will ensure them of a plentiful amount of granddaughters, and then get a nicer guy to invest his resources and energy into raising a child that doesn't carry his genetic material at all. In a sense, woman have evolved a certain capacity to cheat. Of course, monogamy is not a universal human value and as far as I know there is no evidence for or against that Cro Magnons were monogamous. (I did read an interesting thing lately that they had dreadlocks, makes kind of sense)
Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure (1985) found that women were sexually attracted to dominance in men (though dominance did not make men likable to women), and that dominance in women had no effect on men.
This one seems to imply that it indeed works on the subconscious level.
Bogaert & Fisher (1995) studied the relationships between the personalities of university men and their number of sexual partners. They found a correlation between a man's number of sexual partners, and the traits of sensation-seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone levels. They also discovered a correlation between maximum monthly number of partners, and the traits of dominance and psychoticism. Bogaert & Fisher suggest that an underlying construct labelled "disinhibition" could be used to explain most of these differences. They suggest that disinhibition would correlate negatively with "agreeableness" and "conscientiousness" from the Big Five personality model.: Sadalla, E.K., Kenrick, D.T., & Venshure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.
Which seems to affirm a vital cog in our reasoning that jerks have more sexual intercourse.
At the very least, the hypothesis can't be dismissed without some counter arguments I'd reckon. There has been empirical observation and it is encompassed by the theory of sexual selection. Of course, it's simply not a pleasant thing to have as a fact that women have been evolved to cheat and men to objectify and then dump them. But oh well, science waits for no moral values. Discuss.
The case is ostensibly quite simple, the hypothesis that though many women say they like a caring male as a partner, they simply do not and lie to themselves and for the most part are subconsciously attracted to jerks.
The main argument is the argument of sexual selection. Say that you're a jerk who objectifies women, gets them pregnant, then dumps them to go after another female. It's an effective way to spread your genes, you'll have a lot of babies that share them and you need to invest little energy to raise them. It's not too unreasonable to assume that these kind of males have a certain viable evolutionary strategy and are thus plentifully there.
From the other side of the story, say you're a female that gets subconsciously drawn to these males, you will have their babies, some of them will be males who might inherit this behaviour and themselves have more daughters, who will carry your genes. Therefore, women who are, consciously or subconsciously, attracted to jerks that objectify them have more granddaughters, and thus the meme that causes this behaviour can be reasonably be expected to multiply. This is the theory behind it, the empirical information that corroborates it is:
For a start:
Herold & Milhausen (1999) found that 56% of 165 university women claimed to agree with the statement: "You may have heard the expression, 'Nice guys finish last.' In terms of dating, and sex, do you think women are less likely to have sex with men who are 'nice' than men who are 'not nice'?" A third view is that while "nice guys" may not be as successful at attracting women sexually, they may be sought after by women looking for long-term romantic relationships.
It's hard to call this theory obscure or fringe, it's at the very least some-what 'common knowledge' in the university women population. Another thing:
Another study indicates that "for brief affairs, women tend to prefer a dominating, powerful and promiscuous man". Further evidence appears in a 2005 study in Prague - "Since women can always get a man for a one-night stand, they gain an advantage if they find partners for child-rearing" [link]
Which corroborates the theory behind the hypothesis that this is due to evolved sexual selection. Indeed, women seem to have evolved to use the best of both worlds strategy in some aspect, use a jerkier guy to get the superior genetic material which will ensure them of a plentiful amount of granddaughters, and then get a nicer guy to invest his resources and energy into raising a child that doesn't carry his genetic material at all. In a sense, woman have evolved a certain capacity to cheat. Of course, monogamy is not a universal human value and as far as I know there is no evidence for or against that Cro Magnons were monogamous. (I did read an interesting thing lately that they had dreadlocks, makes kind of sense)
Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure (1985) found that women were sexually attracted to dominance in men (though dominance did not make men likable to women), and that dominance in women had no effect on men.
This one seems to imply that it indeed works on the subconscious level.
Bogaert & Fisher (1995) studied the relationships between the personalities of university men and their number of sexual partners. They found a correlation between a man's number of sexual partners, and the traits of sensation-seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone levels. They also discovered a correlation between maximum monthly number of partners, and the traits of dominance and psychoticism. Bogaert & Fisher suggest that an underlying construct labelled "disinhibition" could be used to explain most of these differences. They suggest that disinhibition would correlate negatively with "agreeableness" and "conscientiousness" from the Big Five personality model.: Sadalla, E.K., Kenrick, D.T., & Venshure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.
Which seems to affirm a vital cog in our reasoning that jerks have more sexual intercourse.
At the very least, the hypothesis can't be dismissed without some counter arguments I'd reckon. There has been empirical observation and it is encompassed by the theory of sexual selection. Of course, it's simply not a pleasant thing to have as a fact that women have been evolved to cheat and men to objectify and then dump them. But oh well, science waits for no moral values. Discuss.
