Gene Healy appears confused by my response to his statement that “all other things being equal, women are far more sexually interested in men with wealth and status.” My response was simply, “Gene, you goof. Since when are ‘all other things’ ever equal with respect to romantic prospects?”
In my experience romantic attraction is marvelously complex, a brew of what we are and what we’d like to be. It hinges on the delightful intangibles that help us find extra pieces of ourselves, be it careless irony, empathy, refinement or passion. Most of us – I think – want to be understood and challenged at the same time.
There are as many unique relationship possibilities out there as there are men, though granted most won’t be right for any one woman, and vice versa. But this variation inevitably makes us spoiled for choice – if not in numbers of suitors, at least in their variety.
Of course, women haven’t always had the luxury of actually choosing men this way. Gene rightly suggests that in most cultures throughout history, women have felt compelled to choose mates based in large part on wealth and social standing. This doesn’t, however, mean that these women were “sexually interested” in men based on their wealth. Many made a prudential decision to disregard their sexual or romantic interests in favor of financial security. I visited the Este Castle last month, where I read that one of the Dukes Este beheaded his son and his second wife on the same day. Apparently, she had married (and probably been forced to marry) for wealth and status rather than romantic preference.
While this is doubtless still almost universal in parts of the world, the twin blessings of industrialization and political equality for women have made romantic fulfillment a sometimes-elusive but real possibility for many women in modern liberal democracies. Liberty has allowed us to become so rich that we can afford love. Surely this must rank very, very high among America’s middle class attainments.
Most women with my demographic specs (college-educated, middle-income Americans) are trying to figure out whether they prefer charisma to empathy or brains to experience in a date. While “status” is a confusing concept, I don’t disagree in theory with Gene’s point that, all other things being equal, more money and status are preferable to less. But never have I encountered two men so closely matched in gifts and attitudes that it made sense to decide between them based on wealth or status, and I don’t think I’m unusual among women similarly situated.
Of course, most of these women do have baseline requirements, and don’t in any event meet a lot of homeless refugees in the ordinary course of their days. It is also true that many qualities we may find attractive – imagination, intellect, charm – can be used to make money if their owner so elects.
But I think an excessive masculine focus on the symptom of material success puts the cart (or the Lexus) before the horse, if you will. All good things (money, status, dates) tend to be available disproportionately to those who passionately and energetically develop their best selves – from the inside out.
Sure, some college-educated, middle-class American women still choose men primarily on the basis of money. So many do not, however, that any masculine energy devoted to contemplating this retrograde tendency would be better spent learning how to cook.
Posted by Marie Gryphon on January 15, 2003Well, no, all other things are never equal. But attractiveness and power/status/wealth are not independent variables. The latter can feed into the a woman's perception of "other things" that shape the former. And sure, women are freer to choose than they were prior to the industrial revolution. But the choice is still constrained by untold generations of Darwinian hard-wiring that predisposes women to seek men well-positioned to climb up chimp hierarchies. Wealth probably clouds the issue except inasmuch as it's a proxy for power/status.
Yes, women now work and are self-sufficient, and, agreed, they don't need a man to take care of them. But their perceptions of what's attractive occur in brains that are products of evolution and that predispose them to like qualities that led to reproductive fitness in an environment far different than the one we're lucky enough to live in now.
By the same token, the environment's much different for men these days as well, yet the old patterns persist. Far fewer men these days care about having kids. They want smaller families, if they want families at all. But their preferences--for young, nubile (fertile) women--are still shaped by what led to reproductive success in the ancestral environment.
Posted by: Gene on January 16, 2003 11:21 AMAnd aren't just about all general statements made "other things equal"? e.g. "other things equal," freer economies are more prosperous, school choice promotes better educational quality than state monopoly, etc. etc. Are all of these ruled out of court because ceteris is never quite paribus?
Posted by: julian on January 16, 2003 4:36 PMGene - this is a different and more interesting statement than you made before. Evolution may well predispose us to find attractive certain personality characteristics or physical characteristics that over the centuries equipped men to survive and provide for families. I wouldn't disagree that competence - whether physical, social, intellectual or otherwise - is sexy.
Evolutionary biology likely very substantially effects the choices of educated, middle class American women, but the prospect of having someone else buy you a Mercedes vs. a Ford much less often and to a much lesser extent. An unattractive wealthy dufus with an attitude problem will have a very hard time getting dates with these women.
Julian - Of course you are correct that it's never possible to perfectly isolate a given variable in order to justify a generalization, and I didn't intend to demand proof of Gene's assertion on that level.
My point is that the impact of other factors in this area is just overwhelming in prosperous western cultures. This overwhelming impact does not render Gene's assertion technically false (note that I state "I don't disagree"), but merely unimportant.
Posted by: Marie on January 16, 2003 5:01 PMI don't doubt that some women are more discerning and have better taste than others, but it's simply not true that "An unattractive wealthy dufus with an attitude problem will have a very hard time getting dates with [educated middle-class American]women." Examples are legion. Ron Perleman and Aristotle Onassis are two that come to mind right off the top of my head.
Hm, two thoughts:
I've never argued that money is 100% irrelevent to modern dating decisions, so it follows that absolutely huge amounts of it will have more of an effect than merely a lot of it. There are women out there who wouldn't date a grouchy uncurious investment banker who'd nontheless consider a similar man with the GDP of a moderately sized developing nation. Besides, with a dozen residences around the world, how would he ever find you? :)
Also, I think generational differences play a big role in this analysis. Henry K and Onassis had their heyday in the 1960s and early 70s. Women didn't have genuinely equal professional opportunities until the 80s, and unless you came of age amid those opportunities, you probably missed the boat. Accordingly, it makes sense that women coming of age in the 90s developed significantly different social norms.
Posted by: Marie on January 17, 2003 9:52 AMHello to all! When it come to feeling sexually attracted to one person or another this group's tendency is to over-think the process. All that thinky-think might apply if you put the question in the cold light of day solely as "With whom would you most like to form a permanent attachment?"
In my vast experience, a few of the many reasons that a woman or man may feel turned on are as follows:
1) This is someone that I know my parents will approve / disapprove of.
2) He's (she's) cute, it's spring break and I will never see this person again.
3) It was a rainy night, we missed our connecting flight, our clothes were wet and there was nothing else to do.
4) He (she) has (a) great taste/ manners / mustache/ and is a real fine dancer /kisser/ conversationalist/lover
5) He (she) really listens and understands me.
6) We worked so hard on this project together and wanted to celebrate.
7) We were the last two in the bar.
Any other reasons to offer?
Posted by: John on January 18, 2003 9:56 PM