Althouse: There's some evidence that birth control pills mute a woman's natural urge toward a man who is "objectively good-looking... by evolutionary standards."

November 22, 2014

There's some evidence that birth control pills mute a woman's natural urge toward a man who is "objectively good-looking... by evolutionary standards."

They took 2 sets of women who were on birth control pills when they chose their male partners. Group 1 had objectively good-looking men, and Group 2 had objectively not-so-good-looking men. They stopped the birth control pills, and supposedly the women in Group 2 became less attracted to the men, but the women in Group 1 did not.

If this is true... then what? My thoughts flowed in this order:

1. So this is the real force behind the push for birth control — to serve the interests of unattractive men.

2. Do these men realize the stake they have in getting and keeping women on the pill or are they bellyaching that women are getting a benefit and men are not?

3. Should women want to take the pill so they can enlarge the group of potential sexual partners or should they want to stay off the pill so their natural urges remain intact?

4. Attractiveness in the evolutionary sense is a bit irrelevant under the conditions of the modern world, so it might be personally advantageous to strip this distraction away from the process of mate-selection.

5. It's horrible to use pills to change something so fundamental to one's being, and yet people take all sorts of pills that restructure their mind.

6. Natural hormones restructure your mind over time. Would my thoughts have flowed out in this order if I were 40 or 30 or 20?

68 comments:

tim maguire said...: The problem with an evolutionary incentive for using the pill (expanding the pool of eligible males) is that to make it worthwhile you must, at some point, go off the pill. Then you're stuck with a man you're not attracted to.; 11/22/14, 5:49 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @tim The article says that the pill works by fooling the body into seeing itself as pregnant. If that's true, then going off the pill to get pregnant will only produce the loss of interest during the period when you are trying to get pregnant and not yet pregnant. Granted, that's when you especially need to have sex with this not-objectively-attractive person, but you have the added incentive of baby-making. Not that sexy, but the man doesn't know that.

Also, your statement "to make it worthwhile you must, at some point, go off the pill" is wrong with respect to couples who don't want children.; 11/22/14, 5:57 AM
Heartless Aztec said...: Ahhhh...The comfort of being a male over 60 as all of this is far behind me. A moment's fun read and then a surf check on the pier cam or a wind check on the sailing cam. Or maybe a wander back into the bedroom where the sig other is way past all of this too...; 11/22/14, 6:16 AM
rehajm said...: It's amazing what we're willing to alter our body chemistry for. Remember Breath Assure?; 11/22/14, 6:25 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said...
Attractiveness in the evolutionary sense is a bit irrelevant under the conditions of the modern world, so it might be personally advantageous to strip this distraction away from the process of mate-selection.

This is a bit naive. Sexual selection remains a major force in human evolution. Men seek attractive mates because this increases the likelihood of having attractive children who will in turn have increased reproductive success. While women appear to be less influenced by this factor they are certainly not uninfluenced.

From Richard Dawkins:
"In a society where males compete with each other to be chosen as he-men by females, one of the best things a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man. If she can ensure that her son is one of the fortunate few males who wins most of the copulations in the society when he grows up, she will have an enormous number of grandchildren. The result of this is that one of the most desirable qualities a male can have in the eyes of a female is, quite simply, sexual attractiveness itself."; 11/22/14, 6:27 AM
RecChief said...: your first thought was that birth control pills were a conspiracy of unattractive men?

For pete's sake get a grip.; 11/22/14, 6:32 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Here's an idea for a phone app: A woman can snap a pic and her phone will answer the question,
"Is this guy really cute or is it just the birth control talking?"; 11/22/14, 6:35 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "This is a bit naive. Sexual selection remains a major force in human evolution. Men seek attractive mates because this increases the likelihood of having attractive children who will in turn have increased reproductive success. While women appear to be less influenced by this factor they are certainly not uninfluenced."

I think you've missed my point. Evolution produced an attraction for what would be successful, reproductively, in evolutionary times.

Our world is quite different, and as individuals, we are concerned more with how good our lives are, which includes seeing our children, if we have them, having good lives. You're assuming what we want is to have descendants further on down the line. That is what nature has programmed us to want, but that isn't really what we want for ourselves as we make rational choices in our lives.

Now, being physically attractive may lead to some happiness if others who are good for us like us enough, but it's probably not that huge of a factor, and it can have a downside.

Finding someone who will care about you and stay with you and be compatible and interesting to spend time with can easily conflict with the urge to have someone good looking.; 11/22/14, 6:57 AM
Carnifex said...: As to number 6, I don't consider anyone 20 to be sentient yet. They may start waking up from irrationality by 30, and may be a fully formed sentient being by 40. May be...; 11/22/14, 7:29 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said...
I think you've missed my point. Evolution produced an attraction for what would be successful, reproductively, in evolutionary times.

Our world is quite different

There is no such thing as the end of biology. Evolution didn't stop just because we learned how to talk. We are just as much part of the natural world as we ever were and reproductive success remains a driving force. Our obsession with sports and Kim Kardashian's butt are straightforward examples of this.; 11/22/14, 7:30 AM
Strick said...: I was lead to believe that the evolutionary incentive to prefer less attractive men when choosing a mate, especially around pregnancy, is that they're less likely to get stolen away than a more attractive one.

Not really about attractiveness as much as picking a partner more likely to stay around to help with rearing the child. Benefits all parties in the end, especially the child, a significant evolutionary advantage over the long term.; 11/22/14, 7:53 AM
MayBee said...: Also, your statement "to make it worthwhile you must, at some point, go off the pill" is wrong with respect to couples who don't want children.

For your own health, you need to go off the pill at some point. Using the pill as a long term solution isn't the best option for most women.; 11/22/14, 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann, you may be over-extending the logic of modernity and rational thinking here, and the very definition of 'attractive' itself.

It's actually what can frighten me about the modern planners, and those attracted to rational plans.; 11/22/14, 7:56 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: The result of this is that one of the most desirable qualities a male can have in the eyes of a female is, quite simply, sexual attractiveness itself."

As per usual, Dawkins oversimplifies because he is so unaware of his own biases. To slightly unsimplify, this depends on the environment into which the woman is born. If it is an environment of abundance and saftey, then sure, sexual attractiveness wins out, if it is a society of scarcity or danger, then the woman who chooses a man who can provide for her children and see them through to adulthood wins out.

One of the fundamental drivers of politics is that many men resent a government that usurps their their traditional role vs other men, who see the government nanny state as a way for them to dodge traditional responsibility in a coalition with women who need to be provided for in some way, and so choose the nanny state.

The highly evolved politics of this situation is to mock the former group of men mercilessly as #TeaBaggers.; 11/22/14, 7:57 AM
Laura said...: Regarding evolutionary standards: Male lions are able to identify and kill any offspring of the pride that are not their own, or they have simply evolved the instinct to kill any cubs born before their assumption of leadership. Female lions accept this leadership willingly, hunting and providing food for the dominant male.

Human women in the zoo-like atmosphere of harems or forbidden cities will scheme with castrated males to poison or otherwise eliminate the progeny of their rivals to maintain primogeniture.

While able to posit the theory of evolution -- not to mention string theory and the theory that thought processes can be divided into rational and irrational categories -- the human mind also disrupts the evolutionary process to "save" some species. (See, for example, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals/.)

Power and manipulation ensure the most reliable access to hormonal pleasure, whether it be endorphins, serotonin, oxytocin or the like. Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi learned the hard way that the power of the "sword" trumps the power of the "pen" (unless opportunity for calculated penetration at vulnerable entry point occurs) and only the best or most salacious legends survive oral histories.

Yet in a soundbite world, human sexual reproduction is categorized as recreational or procreative, not pathological or other possibilities. Barbie and Ken can fight the world individually or jointly, but with every exponential increase in the village, more likelihood exists to ensure the designations of patriarch, matriarch, shaman, rock/spear thrower, and idiot.

Why bother with law and ethics?; 11/22/14, 7:57 AM
Fernandinande said...: Attractiveness in the evolutionary sense is a bit irrelevant under the conditions of the modern world, ...

Heh. No, it's not irrelevant at all, and probably more important now than it was under more primitive conditions, e.g.
Therefore, co-author Dr Alexandre Courtiol, from the Wissenschaftskolleg Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin, Germany, said that the characteristics or traits that increase mating success of men, like attractiveness, are likely to evolve more rapidly than those that increase the mating success of women, according to a statement.; 11/22/14, 8:24 AM
B said...: So this is the real force behind the push for birth control — to serve the interests of unattractive men.

I wholeheartedly support this.; 11/22/14, 8:30 AM
Fernandinande said...: AReasonableMan said...
There is no such thing as the end of biology. Evolution didn't stop just because we learned how to talk.

Humans are evolving faster than ever before.

Hawks: "Human evolution stopping? Wrong, wrong, wrong."
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/jones-evolution-stopping-2008.html
or http://westhunt.wordpress.com/; 11/22/14, 8:35 AM
traditionalguy said...: This leaves out the Cosmopolitan Covers advertising 39, or was it 88, ways to seduce people.

The Cosmo Woman chases all men as a sport, and the alcohol and candlelight will make men look better at closing time too.

And if he is that ugly, there is always hope that Todd Akin's method of birth control kicks in when she sobers up the next morning.; 11/22/14, 8:41 AM
traditionalguy said...: One must first define Mating Success.; 11/22/14, 8:42 AM
Gabriel said...: @Ann:Do these men realize the stake they have in getting and keeping women on the pill or are they bellyaching that women are getting a benefit and men are not?

If this refers to insurance, then the objection is that men must pay for a benefit they cannot receive, not that women are getting something men are not getting.

Men are charged much higher premiums than women for auto insurance because they use the benefits more. But in the health insurance arena this is now illegal.

If insurers could somehow get complete information about people, they could individually tailor premiums to expected use of benefits, and in auto insurance they do this to a small extent-your premiums are higher if you're male, they go down as you get older, and they go up as your driving record gets worse and you get into accidents.

But for health insurance this is somehow evil and sexist.

You are not getting a deal by using insurance to buy something that needs to be bought every month. You will be paying, in additional premium, the price of birth control plus extra for admin.

Which is why the law forces someone else who will never use it to be charged a higher premium.; 11/22/14, 8:51 AM
Gabriel said...: @traditionalguy:One must first define Mating Success.

Number of offspring surviving to reproduce; which is why there are all kinds of reproductive strategies from "distribute millions of eggs and do nothing further" to "produce one egg and watch over it for years".

But none of those things work without access to a mate; an adaptation that is more sexually attractive, or in some other way increases the chance of reproduction, might offset the increased chance of mortality that comes with it.

Genghis Khan was a bad man who lived dangerously, though sexual attraction is not primarily what was operating there, but a strategy of killing other men and enslaving their women. However well it worked for him, for most of the people living that lifestyle it was considerably less successful.

But the end result virtually every European and Asian is descended from Genghis Khan, and so we all have a bit of Genghis Khan in our makeup--his strategy is reproductively successful in that the population over time becomes dominated by the descendants of Genghis Khan and other bad men--even though most bad men lead lifestyles that don't result in offspring, for the ones that DO hit the jackpot the payoff is so high it outweighs the risks.

Dalai Lamas don't leave any descendants, though they may live a very long time, and we have considerably less of that in our makeup.; 11/22/14, 9:03 AM
Barry Dauphin said...: Also, your statement "to make it worthwhile you must, at some point, go off the pill" is wrong with respect to couples who don't want children.

I read Tim's point as more in the realm of sociobiology and not about the individual motivations, i.e., considering the pill in the context of what we know (or think we know) about evolution. If there are some genetically based characteristics that underpin the decision to not reproduce, then those genes become less likely to continue in the genetic pool if the couple does not produce offspring. So to make it worthwhile (from an evolutionary standpoint), taking the pill would not to stop in order for the woman to become pregnant. There are other contexts for "worthwhile" but for something to be advantageous in an evolutionary context, genes need to be passed on.

Now I suppose the couple could donate their genes in other ways, such as donating eggs and sperm or perhaps technology will let us contribute to the gene pool in other ways.; 11/22/14, 9:12 AM
Anonymous said...: 4. Attractiveness in the evolutionary sense is a bit irrelevant under the conditions of the modern world, so it might be personally advantageous to strip this distraction away from the process of mate-selection.

This is a horribly confused and uninformed statement.

I think you've missed my point. Evolution produced an attraction for what would be successful, reproductively, in evolutionary times.

Ann, we're still in evolutionary times.; 11/22/14, 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Er, like ARM and Fernandinande said.; 11/22/14, 9:23 AM
Michael K said...: "While women appear to be less influenced by this factor they are certainly not uninfluenced."

The factor of the successful male as a mating partner is important. It is well explained in this book which I tried to get my wife to read as we were heading toward divorce 25 years ago. She wouldn't read it but, 25 years later, we are back together.; 11/22/14, 9:24 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: What's "objective" about good looks? How can you answer that?

Who decides?; 11/22/14, 9:57 AM
Birches said...: Anecdotally, many of the women I know stopped taking the pill because their libido was non-existent on it. I wonder how that factors into the choice of mate?; 11/22/14, 10:19 AM
virgil xenophon said...: @surfed/

Nice watch. East or West Coast or Gulf Coast?; 11/22/14, 10:20 AM
ken in tx said...: I have read of numerous cases of women going off the pill and dumping their boring, reliable men for some bad boy jerk. Attractiveness in cases like this are not necessarily about looks.

Many women, in their natural hormonal state are attracted to bad boy jerks, especially when they are ovulating.; 11/22/14, 10:28 AM
Big Mike said...: Attractiveness in the evolutionary sense is a bit irrelevant under the conditions of the modern world, so it might be personally advantageous to strip this distraction away from the process of mate-selection.

Well, starting in the 1980s it was possible for geeks and nerds to make salaries north of $200K writing computer programs starting at 7:00 AM and finishing up for the day around 9:00 at night. Meanwhile the handsome, broad-shouldered "bad boy" was earning well south of six digits, spending a lot of that in the bar, and being laid off at least a couple months even in a good year. So, yeah, the notion of what is attractive needs work these days.; 11/22/14, 10:36 AM
Big Mike said...: So this is the real force behind the push for birth control — to serve the interests of unattractive men[?]

Apparently not always. Some women greatly enjoy the sensation of semen jetting into them.

Or so I was told.

But it was a long time ago.; 11/22/14, 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: John Lynch: What's "objective" about good looks? How can you answer that?

Who decides?

People. You can tell from people's preferences that there is indeed a fair consensus on what constitutes good looks. When people say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", what they really mean is that "I find some particular variant (blonde v. brunette, Chinese v. Italian, dark-eyed v. light-eyed, etc.) of the generally agreed upon standard to be most attractive".

As someone once succintly put it, it's a matter of "Do you prefer chocolate to vanilla?, not "Do you prefer shit to ice cream?".; 11/22/14, 10:40 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "If this refers to insurance, then the objection is that men must pay for a benefit they cannot receive, not that women are getting something men are not getting."

In my analysis, men are getting the benefit.; 11/22/14, 10:48 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Ann, we're still in evolutionary times."

You're missing my point!

We have bodies with brains that evolved pursuant to conditions that existed long ago. We have not caught up to the current conditions, which are changing very quickly -- computers, cars, medical treatments, etc.

We're operating in a world that is very different from the one our bodies were designed to succeed in (and "succeed" only means reproductive success anyway).

So we are ill-adjusted to the conditions of our own lives, and yet we seek good, happy lives, perhaps with offspring, perhaps not.

What will bring us closer to our personal, individual goals? We could say: Go where the body and mind you have take you. But perhaps that would be into sexual adventures with partners who won't contribute to a happy life in this world where we find ourselves. If there is a pill that takes the edge off natural urges that don't lead us toward a good life, should we want to take that pill?

Personally, I feel that I have a sexual love of male beauty, and I don't want to lose that feeling. But what if, back when I was between marriages — a 20-year period — I had had a great friend, with full compatibility but no sexual attraction because of his lack of physical beauty — would I have chosen to take a pill that would cause me not to care about the visual element of sexual attraction?

Once you put it that way, you have to wonder why not have a pill that lets women feel sexually interested in other women so they won't have to deal with men at all -- if their other interests in life match up better with another women?; 11/22/14, 10:59 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "I have read of numerous cases of women going off the pill and dumping their boring, reliable men for some bad boy jerk. Attractiveness in cases like this are not necessarily about looks."

Can we get a photograph of said "bad boy"?; 11/22/14, 11:00 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "What's "objective" about good looks? How can you answer that?"

One way to start would be clicking on the link and reading how it was done in the study!; 11/22/14, 11:01 AM
Beldar said...: The notion of anyone being "objectively good looking" can only be entertained by those who don't understand what "objective" means.; 11/22/14, 11:03 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Objectively good-looking" meant "by evolutionary standards, which means his attractiveness is an indicator of genetic fitness."

I only read the news article about it, not the underlying study, but "by evolutionary standards" is probably trying to figure out what would work best to allow early men to spread their seed to offspring who survive long enough to do the same. What sorts of features are these? Features that evince health, strength, virility.

I'm sure you've read about these ideas applied to women: Men have an eye for young women because fecundity leads to more offspring. Men like wide hips with a narrow waist and large breasts, because that's what produces successful babies. The man with an eye for old women doesn't project his genes forward. Etc. etc. You know you've seen that!; 11/22/14, 11:09 AM
Beldar said...: I did click on the link, btw, and read the news blurb. I haven't read the underlying study, but the blurb gives utterly no meaningful explanation for how they "objectively" measured which men were and weren't "good-looking." Rather, there the only explanation is this:

"Whether a woman’s attraction to her mate shifted post-Pill seemed to be determined by how objectively good-looking he was by evolutionary standards, which means his attractiveness is an indicator of genetic fitness."

That's double-talk without content. Any man with viable sperm is capable of reproducing, meaning he's "evolutionary" as fit as can be. Now if they're talking about genetic defects, then they're talking about ranking men based on their genotype. I'm pretty sure no-one's genome was sequenced for this study, and I'm very sure that even if that were done, it wouldn't say anything about who could get a date at a single's bar.; 11/22/14, 11:10 AM
Beldar said...: Heh. We disagree, but we at least use the same care to note that we haven't either of us read the underlying study, Professor Althouse. :-); 11/22/14, 11:12 AM
chickelit said...: Evolution produced an attraction for what would be successful, reproductively, in evolutionary times.

Althouse announces the end of evolution.

Hanna Rosin announced the end of men; Francis Fukuyama announced the end of history. Both seemed to have a salient point to make. Both were wrong.; 11/22/14, 11:20 AM
chickelit said...: It's like announcing the end of fashion.; 11/22/14, 11:21 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "That's double-talk without content. Any man with viable sperm is capable of reproducing, meaning he's "evolutionary" as fit as can be."

But any given female doesn't know the quality of the offspring the man will enable her to have, so the point is that we are the descendants of women who made the right choice (or fought off rape by bad choices) and somehow we're programmed to detect men like that before we get impregnated.

But what is that look? I think the assumption is that what is believed conventionally to be male beauty is the look. It's Brad Pitt. It's Cary Grant. You know who is good-looking!

For the study, I would presume -- and I couldn't get the link on the full text to open -- that the 2 groups included women that had clearly good-looking guys and clearly not-so-good-looking guys. They left out the mushy middle.

I'm trying to think of a male celebrity who's in the middle, not clearly good or not good. I asked Meade for his help and the first 2 he came up with were Harrison Ford and Aaron Rodgers. I rejected those! They are good looking! Especially in evolutionary terms.; 11/22/14, 11:29 AM
Beldar said...: I'm not denying that women have intuition, or that it works often.

(Men have it too.)

I'm saying it's not objective.

Even if you say "by evolutionary standards," you don't make it objective. There's no single standard that is evolutionarily optimal. The wider hips that diminish the chance of a mother's (and her child's) death during childbirth may also mean that the mom's swaying run is slower than the bear.

Evolution's about trade-offs, not absolutes, and the trades are dynamic.

De gustibus non disputandum est. And our gusto for sexual partners is a wonderful thing, but it's not objective.

I'm glad for that.; 11/22/14, 11:34 AM
Heartless Aztec said...: @Virgil Xenophon - moving boats up and down the St Johns River from Green Cove Springs to buyers/sellers in Jacksonville and points south in Florida. Free use of the boat and cash money on the barrel head. Life is sweet.; 11/22/14, 11:43 AM
chickelit said...: I'm trying to think of a male celebrity who's in the middle, not clearly good or not good. I asked Meade for his help and the first 2 he came up with were Harrison Ford and Aaron Rodgers. I rejected those! They are good looking! Especially in evolutionary terms.

Alan Alda?; 11/22/14, 12:06 PM
buwaya said...: Any definition of the "good life" that is purely a matter of individual comfort is defective.
We are biological creatures, no matter our technology. If we cannot succeed at reproduction we are objective failures. We can block that out but it remains true regardless.
As my granny would say, es un consuelo de bobo.; 11/22/14, 12:20 PM
tim maguire said...: Actually, a lot of this misses the point. The biological imperative is not merely to have children, but to have children who live long enough to have children themselves. Women bear the burden of providing healthy children, thus the male attraction to wide hips, large breasts and symmetrical features. Men bear the burden of protecting the children as they grow up. Thus the female preference for status. The methods by which men provide may have changed (brains become more important as brawn becomes less so), but the basic fact has jot.

As a result, the male equivalent of beautiful woman is not handsome man, it is rich man. And just as economic strength in a woman is a nice bonus but not important in itself, physical attractiveness in a man is a nice bonus, but no more.

Unless you want to go a step deeper and note that a woman's best strategy is to be impregnated by a bounder and then trick a stable beta male into raising that child. Then you have a new layer of values and incentives.; 11/22/14, 12:25 PM
Jupiter said...: Although evolution hasn't stopped (it can't) it is a major puzzle, at least to me, what evolution is looking for right at the moment. I would suppose, that in an era (our own) in which it is possible for a woman, with the help of a modestly superior man, to have eight or nine children, and raise them all to maturity, there would be a rapid rise in the number of twins. Not so, as far as I can make out.

In fact, the number of children per woman is plummeting all around the world. This appears to be a result of something evolution had not planned on -- women getting to decide whether they would get pregnant. Or rather, an aspect of human behavior which evolution has not previously shaped. There are still some women who have many children, and it may be that in a few generations, most people will be descended from them.

Of course, it may also be that, unbeknownst to us, what evolution is currently selecting for is not living in the places the Pakis and Iranians are going to detonate their nukes. Straight teeth won't really be much use if you are at ground zero.; 11/22/14, 12:26 PM
Jupiter said...: I think what Althouse is getting at, is that we are not obliged to accept Evolution's assessment of our lives, or our spouses. And this is certainly true, but it leads fairly directly to the "point of existence" question, so I shall forebear.

But I have capitalized Evolution, to draw a parallel; in an earlier era, the prevailing view was that God determined the purpose of existence. Now, it was no more evident then, that the acceptance of God as our Creator required us to accept his criteria, than it is now, that our acceptance of Evolution as our Creator requires us to accept Evolution's criteria. People are just sloppy thinkers.; 11/22/14, 12:37 PM
chickelit said...: tim maguire wrote The methods by which men provide may have changed (brains become more important as brawn becomes less so), but the basic fact has jot.

Who provides the tittle?; 11/22/14, 12:46 PM
virgil xenophon said...: @surfed/

BASTARD!!; 11/22/14, 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: You're missing my point!

Yes, I was. You're musing about things that merit better than my pop-offed response. Things that probably require a book-length response.

But it's still true that people are and always have been responding to changed environments with bodies that are adapted to previous environments. I was struck by your #4 because there's nothing new about it being "personally advantageous to strip this distraction away from the process of mate-selection". People want attractive mates but they've always made an effort "to strip away this distraction" in considering a potential mate (and no doubt evolved to do so). Picking a mate just 'cause they're hawt is really more of an option for the modern moron with technology-enhanced options. And it is unlikely that any pharmaceutical product is going to make one want to have sex with that otherwise fine chap who is entirely lacking in the attributes of sexual attractiveness dictated by natural selection - which are always in flux, anyway. (How do you know what you're choosing to go for - "with the distraction stripped away" - hasn't already been "chosen" for you?)

We are always in a state of not being "caught up to the current conditions", and human beings have always had strategies, personal and culturally-based, for cultivating happiness with a "not-objectively attractive person" - most people haven't really ever had much scope in mate choice. Most of us aren't hot stuff, and people who aren't hot stuff tend to sort out with other people who aren't hot stuff, even assuming the choice wasn't made for us by other people, anyway.

Same for finding a role for oneself if one wasn't interested in reproducing. Of course not all societies offered this option (e.g.,teaching, religious orders) at all, particularly to women, but ours did.

You're correct that the rate of change matters, and more technologically complex societies are going to provide both more opportunities to get what we (think we) want, as well as greater potential for pathological responses to our desires and their frustrations.

Aside - one thing that study doesn't cover is the effect of contraceptive use on a woman's attractiveness to men. Iirc, there is some evidence that it lowers it. So, another variable.; 11/22/14, 1:14 PM
buwaya said...: Brains were always more important than brawn, for survival, as we should know if we have ever hunted. I suspect that hunting success would be a highly "g-loaded" factor, to use the IQ guys terms.
And hunter gatherer societies that have persisted to modern times are made up largely of little guys.; 11/22/14, 1:16 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "As a result, the male equivalent of beautiful woman is not handsome man, it is rich man. And just as economic strength in a woman is a nice bonus but not important in itself, physical attractiveness in a man is a nice bonus, but no more."

But that's the point of birth control -- to allow this woman to accept sex with a man who is not "objectively" sexually attractive as evolution has programmed her. The money may make her prefer him as a mate, so she takes the pill to mute her physical preference for the successful man of the distant past.

Just a theory based on the study.

The idea that women don't want an attractive man is something unattractive men tell themselves, but the logic is wrong. And once women are self-supporting, the argument gets even worse.; 11/22/14, 2:35 PM
mccullough said...: Aaron Rodgers is average looking compared to Tom Brady. He's also an average quarterback compared to Tom Brady. Meade has some high standards.; 11/22/14, 2:39 PM
Jupiter said...: "The idea that women don't want an attractive man is something unattractive men tell themselves, but the logic is wrong. And once women are self-supporting, the argument gets even worse."

Meade, you lucky dog.; 11/22/14, 3:39 PM
n.n said...: Sperm depositors can earn interest in a womb bank at a discount. However, they cannot liquidate unwanted or underwater assets without consent of the bank, and they are responsible for future bailouts. Furthermore, the bank can foreclose on a sperm depositor's principle and accrued interest without warning. Depositing the remains in an unlicensed waste receptacle (e.g. toilet). Are sperm deposits insured by the FDIC?; 11/22/14, 3:55 PM
ken in tx said...: Ann is right in one thing about evolution. Modern conditions do not promote survival of the fittest. Modern society makes it possible for people with astigmatism, diabetes, asthma, and other conditions to survive and reproduce offspring. Plus, those who seem to be most fitted for success in modern conditions, are not the ones who are reproducing the most. Humans are devolving, not evolving.; 11/22/14, 4:19 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Why this difference in preferences? (And I would suggest that it mirrors fairly closely the preferences of women throughout their cycles, for good reason)

My theory is that females have two different, somewhat conflicting, sexual strategies, embedded in the through evolution. The first, more basic one, is for the best genes they can get, which means essentially alpha males. Along with corresponding size, symmetry, strong jaw, etc. The other, more recent one, is for a monogamous mate. The latter is to provide resources to help raise their kids. This was presumably evolved when females could no longer adequately provide for their children on their own. And is supported by such evolutionary traits as hidden ovulation and year round sexual receptivity. All evolved in the last 7.5 million years since we split from our nearest ape relatives.

Applying that here, the tension between these two sexual strategies results in females preferring beta mates three weeks of the month, and alphas for one, during ovulation. Trysts during the time of ovulation are, of course, unpopular, with their beta mates, so they have to sneak them, which may be why females are considered by many to be the sneaker sex, esp concerning sex. And, as I pointed out at the start, the preference for betas by those on the pill is likely just a side effect of this dynamic, with their bodies being tricked into not ovulating.; 11/22/14, 4:33 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: One interesting tangent here is that because sex doesn't mean kids much any more, and Uncle Sugar has stepped into the provider role for the Julia's out here, it appears that the alpha (and fake alpha) males are having more of the sex with more of the women, and the betas less. Dr Helen the other day asked what happens when 1/4 the guys have sex with 3/4 of the women, esp to the 3/4 of the guys left out. Some, maybe many, are maybe essentially dropping out of the mating market. She talked about the gamer culture, where the guys consume porn instead of wasting their time on competing for the rare females looking beyond the alphas. But, I think it goes well beyond gamers. A lot of guys instead get into climbing, skiing, surfing, etc, along with professions such as engineering, where they essentially quit competing for mates.

Not good, of course, because that male energy that should be directed into building the future is now being seemingly squandered. We saw last week with the poor scientist in the politically incorrect shirt, why females have built so very little of the technology that separates us from the other apes. But by sleeping with the alphas, and then having society support their kids, instead of a mate, the drive to compete for and provide for a mate is missing from many of the males who would have put it to better use in previous generations.; 11/22/14, 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: tim maquire: As a result, the male equivalent of beautiful woman is not handsome man, it is rich man. And just as economic strength in a woman is a nice bonus but not important in itself, physical attractiveness in a man is a nice bonus, but no more.

No, it's more than a "nice bonus". Ask any guy who's dropped the lard and put on some muscle and I doubt he'll tell you that it made little difference in his ability to attract women.

Women don't respond asexually to male attractiveness - unlike economic assets that a woman might bring to a relationship, which really are just an asexual "nice bonus". They don't increase her sexual attractiveness.

"Care less about physical appearance than men" does not mean "don't care about physical appearance".; 11/22/14, 5:09 PM
natatomic said...: I am 100% convinced that the Pill is responsible for making so many women believe that Benedict Cumberbatch is attractive. Ew.; 11/22/14, 8:44 PM
Bobby said...: Gabriel said...
If this refers to insurance, then the objection is that men must pay for a benefit they cannot receive, not that women are getting something men are not getting.

I don't mean to be crude, but I don't know any other way to put this: as a single man, I have to say that we actually receive a benefit- many of us would say a great benefit- from women being on birth control. Whether or not the state should be dictating it as a requirement to health insurance companies is a totally separate issue, but to say that single men (and, in all fairness, some married men as well) don't, ahem, receive a benefit from women being on birth control is just not true for many of us who are sexually active.; 11/22/14, 9:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Birth control pills... Blech. They mute a woman's natural urges period, (no pun intended), and what they don't mute, those extra 10 lbs or other side effects will. (My friend grew hair ON HER BOOBS.

@tim. No. There is instinct and there is 'strategy'. Strategy comes from the part of the brain that plans your ascent up the corporate ladder and plans your 401k. When you are in your prime reproductive years, male sexual attractiveness is HUGE and often diametrically opposed to who would make a good father in anything but the genetic sense.

Around 23-27, I remember feeling like there was a kid that wanted to be born clocking me and directing me to hot guys I never would have liked before that were bad in a relationship sense - to the degree that I'd have little reasoned conversations with the imaginary fellow...who did not care one bit about stable relationships...just wanted that sweet, sweet genetic code, thank you.; 11/23/14, 3:07 AM
Walter S. said...: OK, here's what I said when we were talking about Gruber's article: "flashy research results like that (can be) either very smart, or just shabby click bait." Gruber's article turned out to be the first kind. What about this one? First clues are negative. But it will take me a few days to get past the paywall (just $10, but insulting). I'll report back in this thread if I can, or wait for another appropriate thread.

Electronic-only publication in a high-volume, broad-coverage journal like this is not strong evidence of non-silliness.; 11/23/14, 5:48 AM
tim maguire said...: SOJO, I would refer you to my final paragraph.

Angelyne and the professor, when I wrote "nice bonus" I did not mean, "utterly irrelevant."; 11/23/14, 6:08 AM