The female students were asked to rate the men for their attractiveness as long-term partners. Overall, the better looking men were rated as more attractive, as were those men with higher status. Crucially, however, there was an interaction between facial attractiveness and status, such that good-looking men with high status were actually rated as less attractive than good-looking men of medium status.
Here is the full report. Remember when Yogi Berra said (more or less): "No one goes there anymore, it is too crowded."
I am not sure that being rated less high is, for these wealthy, handsome men, a sexual or mating disadvantage. I do not feel sorry for them.
From the report web page: “The researchers said this reflected the female strategy of avoiding men who are more likely to be unfaithful in the future.” I wonder if rather than this reflecting fears of future unfaithfulness, it might be a psychological defense mechanism on the part of the female students: having learned which men are likely to be “out of their league”, they pre-emptively degrade their rankings of the attractiveness of men in that category.
A test for that would be to gauge the attractiveness and status of the women participating in the experiment and check that against this trend.
“The same thing happens with men and hot women. Most 10s don’t get hit on constantly. The 7s and 8s do.”
I’ve heard this a lot. I wonder if this isn’t just a old wivestale told amongst 5s and 6s.
I think the idea that nobody hits on 10s is a BS story that women who overestimate their own attractiveness tell. When I see real 10s in a bar – those unbelievably amazing looking girls that know it – they have a huddle of guys all around them, clawing at each other like monkeys for the opportunity to buy the girl more expensive presents. It makes it really easy to hit on the 6s/7s/8s that are there because every other guy is prostrating himself before the one or two 10s that showed up.
The female students in this poll are lying. Why? Who knows. They’re women, that’s what they do.
I think 6 is overly generous for her. Have you seen any of the photos of her an him as grad students?
Looking at who hits on whom at a nightclub is completely pointless. Almost all nightclubs are total sausage parties – note that they have to give free drinks in usually futile efforts to attract more women – so just about any woman is going to have men swarming over her like flies swarm around a … well, you know. She could be a 1 or a 2, for Christ’s sakes, and still be surrounded by men.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and The Red Queen by Matt Ridley had a good potential explanation for this. It was basically that animals that partner up for life will tend to cheat for specific reasons. Females will tend to cheat on males with higher status than their partners (where as men it’s usually about looks). In a sense they have a steady man raise the children of an unsteady man with better genes (that is when they do cheat). Dawkins even referred to it as “being cuckooed” after the cuckoo that tricks other birds into raising it’s children for it.
This study is entirely consistent with that considering the question was about long term partnership and not mere sexual attraction.
Am I the only one who is disturbed by the fact that a man of Dawkins’ credentials would be unfamiliar with the term “cuckolded”?
“Am I the only one who is disturbed by the fact that a man of Dawkins’ credentials would be unfamiliar with the term “cuckolded”?”
Nathan and David: “Cuckold” derives from “cuckoo,” for exactly that reason — that cuckoos trick their mates into raising other partners’ chicks.
I think this is probably biased by the fact that the “medium” profession was teacher which is also linked to being a good father. If there are diminishing marginal returns to sexiness then that might explain why the hot architect got rated behind the hot teacher.
don’t be sorry for those men
Comments on this entry are closed.