Sex and Status Competition
Last October, Steve Sailer had this to say about why there will always be status competition between men. Here is my response:
I.
Why oh why did anyone ever think that sexuality would ever be the source of universal love and harmony? Sex is an complete zero sum game, at least for males, and is consequently one of the most fraught areas of human existence. To put it crudely: women's bodies are a limited resource and good looking women's bodies are an even more limited resource. A individual man benefits by getting access to as many women's bodies as he can and by excluding other men from getting access to those same bodies. Michael Douglas is sleeping with Catherine Zeta Jones and I am not. Even MORE importantly, Mrs. Douglas' kids are (presumably) his and (definitely) not mine. At one point or another sex has been one of the major causes of misery in almost all peoples lives and fighting over women (directly or indirectly) is always going to be a major source of conflict in human life.
Actually, I do know why some people cry up sexual liberation. They benefit. Nothing sticks in my craw like a high status celebrity male, like say comedian Bill Maher, lecturing the rest of us how wonderful the sexual revolution is. Sure its wonderful, if you are famous and rich, but that doesn't mean it is good for society. Defending your privilidges by pretending they are good for everyone else too is hypocrisy. I myself am a fairly handsome, educated, stable person, so I don't do too badly in the dating game overall, but there have been times when I've had low status jobs and I know exactly how the women at work looked at me. Lots of guys who don't have my options are being left out. So, while we shouldn't expect the media or celebrities or higher status male fellow travellers of any sort to suddenly start preaching monogamy and chastity, we shouldn't let them off the hook either.
A quote from the magnificent, but somewhat deranged, French novelist Michel Houellebecq's first fiction is apposite:
II.
Actually we have done a lot to reduce the zero sum aspect of some areas of human life quite nicely, as shown in books like Robert Wright's Non-zero. For example, there is a lot less war now than at any time in human history. Unfortunately, sex just will never be one of these areas. And because it is such a hugely important area of human life, its pretty much inevitable that at least some people's lives are going to just suck.
It should be noted that while clamping down on pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce would reduce competition over the number of women, there would still be competition over the prettiest women. Somebody is going to end up with the "ugly chick" and even if she is a really good person (a big if) her husband is probably not ever going to be wholly free of resentment. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be any way to completely get around this. (See Aristophanes' Congresswomen for a great satire of the kind of sexual socialism needed to achieve real equality on this. There is a wonderful translation by Douglass Parker.)
III.
David Friedman and Will Wilkinson are right in one sense though: there are lots of different ways to achieve high status in ways that will attract women. And that means that men should play to their strengths. If you are a smart but nerdy introvert, it is probably not the greatest idea to go up against some big man in a field that requires a lot charisma, like acting.
I think this is a big reason why men often don't go in for certain activities that interest women, such as dance classes. Nerds often look clumsy at these activities and the contrast between them and the handsome, charismatic, talented big men just depresses them and makes them even less attractive to women. Sometimes you really are better off putting long hours at the school or work and making a lot of money. Unfortunately, this has big risks. The trick is, once you've got your money or at least some good prospects, to go out and meet women. And if you are a nerdy guy who has been stuck in the office for a while without much contact with women, you've certainly not had much practice at relating to them better, and you do need to get practice on this. (Meanwhile, morality being what it is these days, chances are some big man has been taking advantage of your absence from the dating market and been pounding away at your future wife, at least until she gets wise and starts to look around for someone to treat her better. Nerds not being stupid, this can of course make them rather contemptuous of women, and cause the situation to get even worse.) The key here is some kind of balance. I can't say exactly what it is, but there you have it.
NOTE: There is an excellent article on Houllebecq here.
I.
Why oh why did anyone ever think that sexuality would ever be the source of universal love and harmony? Sex is an complete zero sum game, at least for males, and is consequently one of the most fraught areas of human existence. To put it crudely: women's bodies are a limited resource and good looking women's bodies are an even more limited resource. A individual man benefits by getting access to as many women's bodies as he can and by excluding other men from getting access to those same bodies. Michael Douglas is sleeping with Catherine Zeta Jones and I am not. Even MORE importantly, Mrs. Douglas' kids are (presumably) his and (definitely) not mine. At one point or another sex has been one of the major causes of misery in almost all peoples lives and fighting over women (directly or indirectly) is always going to be a major source of conflict in human life.
Actually, I do know why some people cry up sexual liberation. They benefit. Nothing sticks in my craw like a high status celebrity male, like say comedian Bill Maher, lecturing the rest of us how wonderful the sexual revolution is. Sure its wonderful, if you are famous and rich, but that doesn't mean it is good for society. Defending your privilidges by pretending they are good for everyone else too is hypocrisy. I myself am a fairly handsome, educated, stable person, so I don't do too badly in the dating game overall, but there have been times when I've had low status jobs and I know exactly how the women at work looked at me. Lots of guys who don't have my options are being left out. So, while we shouldn't expect the media or celebrities or higher status male fellow travellers of any sort to suddenly start preaching monogamy and chastity, we shouldn't let them off the hook either.
A quote from the magnificent, but somewhat deranged, French novelist Michel Houellebecq's first fiction is apposite:
Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperisation. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as ‘the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system, certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment in misery. In a totally liberal sexual system, certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.
II.
Actually we have done a lot to reduce the zero sum aspect of some areas of human life quite nicely, as shown in books like Robert Wright's Non-zero. For example, there is a lot less war now than at any time in human history. Unfortunately, sex just will never be one of these areas. And because it is such a hugely important area of human life, its pretty much inevitable that at least some people's lives are going to just suck.
It should be noted that while clamping down on pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce would reduce competition over the number of women, there would still be competition over the prettiest women. Somebody is going to end up with the "ugly chick" and even if she is a really good person (a big if) her husband is probably not ever going to be wholly free of resentment. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be any way to completely get around this. (See Aristophanes' Congresswomen for a great satire of the kind of sexual socialism needed to achieve real equality on this. There is a wonderful translation by Douglass Parker.)
III.
David Friedman and Will Wilkinson are right in one sense though: there are lots of different ways to achieve high status in ways that will attract women. And that means that men should play to their strengths. If you are a smart but nerdy introvert, it is probably not the greatest idea to go up against some big man in a field that requires a lot charisma, like acting.
I think this is a big reason why men often don't go in for certain activities that interest women, such as dance classes. Nerds often look clumsy at these activities and the contrast between them and the handsome, charismatic, talented big men just depresses them and makes them even less attractive to women. Sometimes you really are better off putting long hours at the school or work and making a lot of money. Unfortunately, this has big risks. The trick is, once you've got your money or at least some good prospects, to go out and meet women. And if you are a nerdy guy who has been stuck in the office for a while without much contact with women, you've certainly not had much practice at relating to them better, and you do need to get practice on this. (Meanwhile, morality being what it is these days, chances are some big man has been taking advantage of your absence from the dating market and been pounding away at your future wife, at least until she gets wise and starts to look around for someone to treat her better. Nerds not being stupid, this can of course make them rather contemptuous of women, and cause the situation to get even worse.) The key here is some kind of balance. I can't say exactly what it is, but there you have it.
NOTE: There is an excellent article on Houllebecq here.
posted by Thursday at
11:57 AM
10 Comments:
Lots of good points, and I like Houllebecq too. A couple of quick responses? While I think the "zero sum game" thing has its points as the basis for a discussion about sex, I also think it falls down in some ways. It makes sense if "sex" is conceived of as "a race to land the hottest and most desirable mate." But is that really all sex is about? People live together and break up, divorce and remarry, go for ten or twenty years before settling down, never settle down at all, have affairs while maintaining marriages (or not) ... Surely this complicates the picture. All that said, not enough is ever made of the fact that, for a certain number of guys, it's always going to be tough to land a girl or a guy. What a lot of character it must take for these people to overcome bitterness, loneliness, etc. But will this fact ever be different, whether under a conservative, liberal, progressive or traditional regime?
Other point: This is just a personal hunch, but I suspect that the phenomenon of "guys refusing to go where the girls are, because it makes them feel awkward, and then complaining that they can't meet girls" might be a mainly North American thing. You don't see it so much in Europe, where flirtation and mating skills are cultivated, and where the "I gotta express myself!" thing isn't so prevalent. It's quite astonishing to me, the spectacle of guys pumping iron, drinking beer, playing videogames -- all together, all with other guys -- who then complain about da chix. When they're told to take dance classes, attend wine courses, take yoga or acting, or to do anything that might put them in proximity to actual females, they ridicule the idea. Hey dudes: If you're gonna meet 'em, first you gotta get near 'em.
I'm very reluctant to go anywhere near this topic, as within the last couple of days I got horrendously flamed on another forum for having the temerity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, nerds aren't all that bad. It rapidly deteriorated from there and culminated in my being called "a classic abuser personality." Life Lesson #1: never defend nerds, or denigrate big men aka Alpha Males, on a female-dominated forum. You will be very, very sorry.
Anyway, I'll dip my toe into the waters and make a couple of disconnected observations. First of all, the whole dating/marriage field is unavoidably complicated by the fact that women have shorter shelf lives than men. A man who wants to marry and have children can wait until he's in his middle 30's or even older before getting serious about the issue, so long as he is able and willing to find a somewhat younger woman. He can spend his younger years "playing the field" or doing anything else he wants. Women of course are under much greater time pressure given age-related declines in fertility. I read recently that given the time that serious dating and engagements take, with allowance for long-term relationships that ultimately fail and therefore lead to dead ends, a marriage-and-children seeking woman should get serious about her quest no later than age 25. I'd say that might be a little restrictive, but clearly time is much more of the essence for women.
What's sort of ironic is that a woman's shorter shelf life exists only with respect to fertility. In other respects women age more slowly than men. It's of course a known fact that women live several years longer than men. It also seems to me, however, that once they are past 30 or 35 women simply look and act younger than men of the same age. The typical 50-year-old woman is younger looking and far more physically fit than her male counterpart. It's absolutely shocking how so many men go so far downhill, physically speaking, after 30 or 35. The stereotype of the former athlete gone completely to seed in middle age is all too accurate.
My second point involves Michael Blowhard's prior comment. While attending female-oriented activities such as dance classes and yoga might be a way for a man to meet women, wouldn't the women see his participation as nothing but a ruse to meet women and scorn or ridicule him for that reason? It seems to me that he'd have to have mighty good natural acting skills to get around that obstacle.
Actually, at least in my experience men with conventional "guy stuff" interests - sports, cars, outdoor recreation, manual crafts such as woodworking - by and large don't have any particular trouble finding women even though not many women share those interests. The men who have the hardest time are those whose interests are largely male yet seen as not truly masculine; examples are science fiction, Star Trek, fantasy such as LOTR, role-playing games like D&D, video games (WoW is particularly bad in this respect); comic book collecting, etc.
An aging lothario told me once that the secret is to listen to them.
You know, I've known quite a few men who were married to plain women and appeared to be very fond of them. What's more, they don't always appear to be aware of their wives' plainness, finding something in their appearance to appreciate.
And men married to or otherwise involved with women they regard as exceptionally beautiful often appear to be equally blinded by affection. Objectively, their wives are no more than pretty women with nice faces, much of the time.
Personality (in both the lover and the beloved), fashions in beauty - and there are fashions in beauty, in spite of certain persistent "tropes" based on health and youth, and the quirks of personal taste, all play a part in our assessment of what is beautiful. Really.
p.s. By fashions in beauty, I mean things like the present taste for really wide (as well as full) lips on women - something that used to be seen as unattractive in more racist times, when large full lips were equated with African blood. The thin-lipped Cheryl Tiegs would not get as much pop culture attention today as she did in the 1970s. Vivian Leigh was nearly universally regarded as a great beauty in her time but her soft-featured oval face is no longer in style now, so most men see her as merely pretty. Audrey Hepburn had to overcome much prejudice against thinness and big features before she began to be seen as a beauty, but no one minds these "negatives" now. Her look has remained fashionable.
By quirks of personal taste, I mean the fact that some men like really voluptuous bodies, to the point of ignoring a little extra weight. Others like really slender ones, so they don't mind that a woman's chest is virtually concave with thinness. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point.
Hey, life is unfair, get over it.
women's sex organs are a limited resource and good looking women's sex organs are an even more limited resource
This is correct, but contradicts what you wrote a while back about loose women undermining the market position of women in general.
Actually, technology can do a lot to solve these problems.
First off, plastic surgery (or eugenics? or simply interracial marriage?) can, with social acceptance, greatly improve the average quality of appearance (think braces and British teeth), while reducing the variance. Less radically, so can changes of fashion which place more emphasis on a normal healthy appearance which most men in most of history would be pleased by and don't fettishize abnormal traits, and which promote non-uniformity in both tastes and in clothing. Better public health, diet and fitness can do much for average appearance as well.
Second, technology is rapidly increasing the duration of female fertility.
Third, drugs can and do effect libido. They could be used to better equalize the sexes in this respect while having other beneficial impacts, e.g. encouraging SSRIs for men or low doses of testosterone precursors or dopamine agonists for women.
Fourth, ever improved birth control, paternity testing, and STD prevention (via vaccination etc?) can greatly reduce the importance of sexual exclusivity for both genders. (which is why some elements of the right oppose HPV vaccines).
"... chances are some big man has been taking advantage of your absence from the dating market and been pounding away at your future wife, at least until she gets wise and starts to look around for someone to treat her better"
Yes, precisely. In other words, many men today are basically cuckolded before they are even married. I have never understood why so many men are prepared to take what are basically other men's "leavings".
The message the woman is sending is that she wanted the "big man" badly enough to give him sexual access without marriage, and now that she has missed out on catching him, she will take second-best. Namely, you.
No thanks.
Marry a pretty virgin.
Um...I guess this is how men talk when there are no women around... (Tip toes out again very quietly.)
Yikes, did I actually post this! [I say 6 months later] I'm all for being blunt, but even for me this is a bit crude. Apologies to my female readers, if I have any left.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home