I’ve seen this idea before, but I wonder if we actually have any empirical evidence that it is true that short-term mating reduces the likelihood of pair bonding for women later in life. My gut reaction is that this may be true for some female phenotypes, but not for others.
I have my own pet theory about this, extrapolated from real-life observations and a number of other clues, which are not very strong individually, but seem to add up to a pretty strong web of evidence.
To put it as succinctly as possible, the problem stems from two not very pretty, but nevertheless real facts. First, the attractiveness of individual men to women has an extremely high statistical dispersion, even more so than vice versa. (In other words, the difference between men from different percentiles in women’s eyes will be significantly greater than the difference between women in analogous percentiles in men’s eyes.) Second, and more important, for a typical woman, the attractiveness of men she can get for non-serious temporary relationships is significantly higher than the attractiveness of her realistic options for permanent commitment. (This also holds far more so than the reverse.) It follows that when a woman with a variegated relationship history finally settles down, it will likely be with a man whose attractiveness is significantly lower than those she’s been involved with in the past. It’s not hard to see why this is a recipe for trouble, and clearly the implications are somewhat reactionary in nature.
On the other hand, if a woman settles down with a man who outclasses all those she’d been involved with earlier, her ability to bond with him probably won’t be compromised. Trouble is, this is obviously increasingly unlikely as their number is greater.
Second, and more important, for a typical woman, the attractiveness of men she can get for non-serious temporary relationships is significantly higher than the attractiveness of her realistic options for permanent commitment. (This also holds far more so than the reverse.) It follows that when a woman with a variegated relationship history finally settles down, it will likely be with a man whose attractiveness is significantly lower than those she’s been involved with in the past.
Excellent point; I was thinking along similar lines in this comment.
I think part of the reason that I found komponisto’s original comment in the thread to be less offensive than others was because it instantly reminded me of the hypothesis you describe, which is a potential way of rationalizing his comment.
The argument goes something like this: For many gender-typical heterosexual women, the guys who are the most sexually exciting may not always be the best relationship partners. This could be partly be because the men who are highly attractive to women are also highly attractive to other women, and have so much options that it’s difficult for particular women to get them in a relationship. Men have lower standards for short-term partners than for long-term partners. It could also be because, for some women, there is a tradeoff between the traits that make a guy a good long-term partner, and the traits that make him sexually exciting. For example, certain masculine traits like dominance are sexually exciting to some women, but may nevertheless be frustrating to deal with in an actual relationship.
The argument proceeds by suggesting that since the most sexually exciting guys are the worst relationship prospects (for some women), everyone could be better off if women also “gave a chance” to slightly less attractive men who could be better relationship prospects. Women should decide what they want in men by taking into account more than just sex appeal, the argument goes, and the result would be that women don’t restrict their dating to only the most sexually exciting guys around at the time.
Now, I call this “the argument” because I’m not sold on it myself. The fact is that people, especially young people, like excitement. I’m not really interested in saying that women should go for guys who bore them, even if those guys might be more stable. Yet I think that this argument should be one that we can entertain; it’s a rationalization of komponisto’s original argument, and it takes into account women’s interests. Furthermore, to the extent that there is conflict between different elements of women’s preferences (e.g. desire for excitement vs. desire for a long-term relationship), women may be free to decide which elements of their preferences are most important, and which they should act on.
The other reason that I’m skeptical of asking women to change is that it’s not really their fault that there can be such a tradeoff between sexual attractiveness and long-term potential in males. To some degree, that tradeoff is inevitable because it’s logically impossible for men to be dominant and non-dominant at the same time, and it’s empirically difficult to find men who have high level of both stereotypically masculine and feminine traits. Yet some of that tradeoff is cultural: male socialization seems to put men on “tracks” of either a drab “nice guy” long-term mating strategy, or a more exciting “bad boy” short-term mating strategy. The attractiveness of a lot of men in the former category is artificially deflated by harmful cultural forces.
It’s not women’s fault, if a lot of the time, the only choices they are faced with is “sexually exciting badboy who will get tired of me in a month,” and “boring, sweet nerdy guy who I’m only marginally attracted to.” This is a tough menu for women to face, and I don’t think the choice they should make is obvious. It would be better for everyone if the second guy had a bit more of an edge, making him a credible object of female desire and credible contender to the badboy. Thanks to the seduction community, that guy can now get more of an edge.
(I propose that female attraction as a function of masculinity is non-linear for some women: it’s more like a bell-curve or a threshold function. Some women always want more masculinity in men; others are happy with a certain amount. Unfortunately, the amount of masculinity that most women want is more than a lot of the guys who would make good long-term mates have. This could steer women towards dating guys who are masculinity-overkill and poor long-term mates, since those are the only guys above the threshold of attractiveness.)
(I propose that female attraction as a function of masculinity is non-linear for some women: it’s more like a bell-curve or a threshold function. Some women always want more masculinity in men; others are happy with a certain amount. Unfortunately, the amount of masculinity that most women want is more than a lot of the guys who would make good long-term mates have. This could steer women towards dating guys who are masculinity-overkill and poor long-term mates, since those are the only guys above the threshold of attractiveness.)
I absolutely agree with this observation. The saddest thing is that most of the “nice” guys could ramp up their masculinity with some reasonable effort, and without compromising any of the existing aspects of their personality that they value. This would make things much happier both for them and for women, who are nowadays indeed facing a severe shortage of men that are both good long-term prospects and above some reasonable threshold of masculinity. Yet it’s virtually impossible to open this topic in public, let alone present any concrete advice on how to actually achieve this goal, without triggering all sorts of politically correct alarms.
If this is true, why aren’t they doing it? I’m not convinced that the heightening of happiness you speak of is worth the lessening of happiness that those guys evidently believe would occur were they to change themselves (or alternatively, act like someone else for as long as it takes).
lessening of happiness that those guys evidently believe would occur were they to change themselves
They greatly overestimate the lessening of happiness they would experience from changing things. Saying “changing isn’t worth it” seems like some sort of rationalization that leads people to settle for mediocrity, even from the perspective of their own values. And it’s a purely theoretical conjecture: you (general “you”) will never know until you’ve tried.
Yes, you will need some change in your self-image. But it’s not like improving your social skills, body language, voice tonality, and fashion sense is going to shatter your sense of self and turn you into a fundamentally different person. You will feel continuity with your previous version; most of your values will be the same, and some of your values will actually be served better. The only way it would be a problem is for people who have very brittle self-images, like “I don’t talk to people at parties.” Why the hell not?
Of course, it’s difficult for people who hold a value against changing their behavior to fit other people’s criteria and expectations. For people with this value, I would ask: is it more important than some of your other values and goals?
So many introverts have been duped with platitudes like “you shouldn’t change yourself for anyone.” Yet the entire nature of social interaction involves people adjusting to fit the expectations of others (see impression management. Many introverts and nerdy people huff and puff and say “well, IDONTLIKETHATANDITSSTUPID.” But I’m not sure whether social interaction works is inherently so bad, or whether it is merely unintuitive given some of the personality traits and socialization of introverted and nerdy people.
The goal of self-identity should not be trying to avoid having to make any changes or adjustments for others; the goal should be to reconcile one’s desire for identity and individuality with the adjustments one makes in the social landscape.
Might be useful to explain the compromises necessary in terms of computer security. Somebody wants to know something about your hardware specs, so they ask you to run the performance benchmark app “look like a tough guy” and send them the outputs. They’re a lot less interested in whatever other benchmarks you might have, because of the whole apples-to-oranges thing. You’re worried that it’s malware, so, run it in ring 3 where it can’t touch the critical processes. You’re running “don’t talk to people at parties” in ring 0? That sounds like a fairly serious problem in and of itself, of which conflicts with the benchmark app are just one symptom.
I have a strong negative reaction to much of your argument, but I’m not sure why, so I’m going to hold off on a response to those things that I’m unsure about. However,
Yet the entire nature of social interaction involves people adjusting to fit the expectations of others
I would say that some things we do socially involve this, and others do not. For example, it seems unlikely that you believe the point of your comment in reply to me was to adjust yourself to my expectations, or the expectations of others here, and yet we are interacting socially.
I have a strong negative reaction to much of your argument, but I’m not sure why, so I’m going to hold off on a response to those things that I’m unsure about.
When you’re ready to articulate it, I would be interested to hear it. I didn’t phrase my comment to be maximally persuasive to the particular people who needed it; I aimed it at a more general LW audience.
For more about where I am coming from, also see this essay on shallowness.
I would say that some things we do socially involve this, and others do not.
Yes, that’s what I was getting at. I mean that social interaction is impossible without some level of conforming.
Because the necessary information is difficult to obtain in a clear and convincing form, and it’s drowned in a vast sea of nonsense that’s produced on this subject by just about every source of information in the modern society. Therefore, a great many people are unaware of the problem, or even actively misled about it due to the prevailing hypocritical norms for discussing the subject.
HughRistik:
I have my own pet theory about this, extrapolated from real-life observations and a number of other clues, which are not very strong individually, but seem to add up to a pretty strong web of evidence.
To put it as succinctly as possible, the problem stems from two not very pretty, but nevertheless real facts. First, the attractiveness of individual men to women has an extremely high statistical dispersion, even more so than vice versa. (In other words, the difference between men from different percentiles in women’s eyes will be significantly greater than the difference between women in analogous percentiles in men’s eyes.) Second, and more important, for a typical woman, the attractiveness of men she can get for non-serious temporary relationships is significantly higher than the attractiveness of her realistic options for permanent commitment. (This also holds far more so than the reverse.) It follows that when a woman with a variegated relationship history finally settles down, it will likely be with a man whose attractiveness is significantly lower than those she’s been involved with in the past. It’s not hard to see why this is a recipe for trouble, and clearly the implications are somewhat reactionary in nature.
On the other hand, if a woman settles down with a man who outclasses all those she’d been involved with earlier, her ability to bond with him probably won’t be compromised. Trouble is, this is obviously increasingly unlikely as their number is greater.
Excellent point; I was thinking along similar lines in this comment.
I think part of the reason that I found komponisto’s original comment in the thread to be less offensive than others was because it instantly reminded me of the hypothesis you describe, which is a potential way of rationalizing his comment.
The argument goes something like this: For many gender-typical heterosexual women, the guys who are the most sexually exciting may not always be the best relationship partners. This could be partly be because the men who are highly attractive to women are also highly attractive to other women, and have so much options that it’s difficult for particular women to get them in a relationship. Men have lower standards for short-term partners than for long-term partners. It could also be because, for some women, there is a tradeoff between the traits that make a guy a good long-term partner, and the traits that make him sexually exciting. For example, certain masculine traits like dominance are sexually exciting to some women, but may nevertheless be frustrating to deal with in an actual relationship.
The argument proceeds by suggesting that since the most sexually exciting guys are the worst relationship prospects (for some women), everyone could be better off if women also “gave a chance” to slightly less attractive men who could be better relationship prospects. Women should decide what they want in men by taking into account more than just sex appeal, the argument goes, and the result would be that women don’t restrict their dating to only the most sexually exciting guys around at the time.
Now, I call this “the argument” because I’m not sold on it myself. The fact is that people, especially young people, like excitement. I’m not really interested in saying that women should go for guys who bore them, even if those guys might be more stable. Yet I think that this argument should be one that we can entertain; it’s a rationalization of komponisto’s original argument, and it takes into account women’s interests. Furthermore, to the extent that there is conflict between different elements of women’s preferences (e.g. desire for excitement vs. desire for a long-term relationship), women may be free to decide which elements of their preferences are most important, and which they should act on.
The other reason that I’m skeptical of asking women to change is that it’s not really their fault that there can be such a tradeoff between sexual attractiveness and long-term potential in males. To some degree, that tradeoff is inevitable because it’s logically impossible for men to be dominant and non-dominant at the same time, and it’s empirically difficult to find men who have high level of both stereotypically masculine and feminine traits. Yet some of that tradeoff is cultural: male socialization seems to put men on “tracks” of either a drab “nice guy” long-term mating strategy, or a more exciting “bad boy” short-term mating strategy. The attractiveness of a lot of men in the former category is artificially deflated by harmful cultural forces.
It’s not women’s fault, if a lot of the time, the only choices they are faced with is “sexually exciting badboy who will get tired of me in a month,” and “boring, sweet nerdy guy who I’m only marginally attracted to.” This is a tough menu for women to face, and I don’t think the choice they should make is obvious. It would be better for everyone if the second guy had a bit more of an edge, making him a credible object of female desire and credible contender to the badboy. Thanks to the seduction community, that guy can now get more of an edge.
(I propose that female attraction as a function of masculinity is non-linear for some women: it’s more like a bell-curve or a threshold function. Some women always want more masculinity in men; others are happy with a certain amount. Unfortunately, the amount of masculinity that most women want is more than a lot of the guys who would make good long-term mates have. This could steer women towards dating guys who are masculinity-overkill and poor long-term mates, since those are the only guys above the threshold of attractiveness.)
HughRistik:
I absolutely agree with this observation. The saddest thing is that most of the “nice” guys could ramp up their masculinity with some reasonable effort, and without compromising any of the existing aspects of their personality that they value. This would make things much happier both for them and for women, who are nowadays indeed facing a severe shortage of men that are both good long-term prospects and above some reasonable threshold of masculinity. Yet it’s virtually impossible to open this topic in public, let alone present any concrete advice on how to actually achieve this goal, without triggering all sorts of politically correct alarms.
If this is true, why aren’t they doing it? I’m not convinced that the heightening of happiness you speak of is worth the lessening of happiness that those guys evidently believe would occur were they to change themselves (or alternatively, act like someone else for as long as it takes).
They greatly overestimate the lessening of happiness they would experience from changing things. Saying “changing isn’t worth it” seems like some sort of rationalization that leads people to settle for mediocrity, even from the perspective of their own values. And it’s a purely theoretical conjecture: you (general “you”) will never know until you’ve tried.
Yes, you will need some change in your self-image. But it’s not like improving your social skills, body language, voice tonality, and fashion sense is going to shatter your sense of self and turn you into a fundamentally different person. You will feel continuity with your previous version; most of your values will be the same, and some of your values will actually be served better. The only way it would be a problem is for people who have very brittle self-images, like “I don’t talk to people at parties.” Why the hell not?
Of course, it’s difficult for people who hold a value against changing their behavior to fit other people’s criteria and expectations. For people with this value, I would ask: is it more important than some of your other values and goals?
So many introverts have been duped with platitudes like “you shouldn’t change yourself for anyone.” Yet the entire nature of social interaction involves people adjusting to fit the expectations of others (see impression management. Many introverts and nerdy people huff and puff and say “well, IDONTLIKETHATANDITSSTUPID.” But I’m not sure whether social interaction works is inherently so bad, or whether it is merely unintuitive given some of the personality traits and socialization of introverted and nerdy people.
The goal of self-identity should not be trying to avoid having to make any changes or adjustments for others; the goal should be to reconcile one’s desire for identity and individuality with the adjustments one makes in the social landscape.
Might be useful to explain the compromises necessary in terms of computer security. Somebody wants to know something about your hardware specs, so they ask you to run the performance benchmark app “look like a tough guy” and send them the outputs. They’re a lot less interested in whatever other benchmarks you might have, because of the whole apples-to-oranges thing. You’re worried that it’s malware, so, run it in ring 3 where it can’t touch the critical processes. You’re running “don’t talk to people at parties” in ring 0? That sounds like a fairly serious problem in and of itself, of which conflicts with the benchmark app are just one symptom.
You mean, try on roles as a way of practicing them, while protecting them from “ring 0” (your “true self”)?
Practicing them, yes, but also more directly as part of cooperating with established communication standards.
I have a strong negative reaction to much of your argument, but I’m not sure why, so I’m going to hold off on a response to those things that I’m unsure about. However,
I would say that some things we do socially involve this, and others do not. For example, it seems unlikely that you believe the point of your comment in reply to me was to adjust yourself to my expectations, or the expectations of others here, and yet we are interacting socially.
When you’re ready to articulate it, I would be interested to hear it. I didn’t phrase my comment to be maximally persuasive to the particular people who needed it; I aimed it at a more general LW audience.
For more about where I am coming from, also see this essay on shallowness.
Yes, that’s what I was getting at. I mean that social interaction is impossible without some level of conforming.
randallsquared:
Because the necessary information is difficult to obtain in a clear and convincing form, and it’s drowned in a vast sea of nonsense that’s produced on this subject by just about every source of information in the modern society. Therefore, a great many people are unaware of the problem, or even actively misled about it due to the prevailing hypocritical norms for discussing the subject.