Bad guys get the girls

[SkepticLance]

An item from New Scientist points out that males with certain anti-social qualities get far more sex, albeit in short term relations, than 'nice' guys. Now I know why I missed out at University! Damn!!

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826614.100

[ecoli]

I wonder how many "bad guys" get into meaningful relationships, however.

[nstansbury]

Yeah - but who cares!

[ecoli]

probably all the girls I've given syphilis to

[cathycaregiver]

Well, one doesn't have to be a scientist to figure that one out!

 

~Cathy~

[iNow]

I'd ammend the thread title somewhat. Bad guys get laid, confident and intelligent guys get loved AND laid.

[ecoli]

Yeah - but who cares!

 

and, on a serious note, fathers who maintain families, rather then fathering kids in every state, probably have more successful children, leaving me to believe there would be selection for 'nice guys.'

[Paralith]

and, on a serious note, fathers who maintain families, rather then fathering kids in every state, probably have more successful children, leaving me to believe there would be selection for 'nice guys.'

 

And on an equally serious note, successful cuckoldry can allow a woman to mate with the "bad" guy and let the family-maintaining-father foot the bill, so to speak. And even if the family man knows his mate's child isn't his own, research suggests that willing efforts on his part to raise that child will increase the chances that his mate will have a child with him too.

 

There are a variety of mating tactics a male can take advantage of, as not everyone can be the alpha dog, or the bad guy, or the perfect family man. So they all exist in the population in relative balance with each other, each fathering enough children to maintain the strategy.

[Sisyphus]

Sure, makes sense. A-list genes guy has his choice of mates, and can maximize reproductive success by being promiscuous and not getting too attached. B-list genes guy has to offer potential mates more to even the odds, like helping to care for the littluns'. Sly woman can get the best of both worlds and maximize her own offspring's success by sneaking around with A-list guy and getting B-list guy to help raise the result. Isn't evolution fun?

[PhDP]

I'm not disputing the result, but I don't think it has any broad implication. Genetic monogamy, which is, in a way, the only relevant form of monogamy, is ridiculously high for humans and women tend to favor men with "feminized" faces (related to good parenting skills).

 

Also, there is the question of quality, why would an intelligent, beautiful, confident woman be satisfied by these so-called 'bad boys' ?

[Paralith]

I'm not disputing the result, but I don't think it has any broad implication. Genetic monogamy, which is, in a way, the only relevant form of monogamy, is ridiculously high for humans and women tend to favor men with "feminized" faces (related to good parenting skills).

 

Also, there is the question of quality, why would an intelligent, beautiful, confident woman be satisfied by these so-called 'bad boys' ?

 

Of course women prefer helpful mates for long term relationships; but cuckoldry is also more common than you probably think. I think the latest estimate was that 10% of human males are cuckolded - for every 10 fathers out there, one of them is raising a child that is not his and he doesn't know it. If nothing else, human males have many behavioral traits that are meant to protect against cuckoldry, and I don't think these traits would be so prevalent if it was not a significant barrier to reproductive success.

 

My personal theory is that the "bad boy" represents a roving stranger male, someone who is definitely outside of your kin group. Mating with such a male is a good way to introduce some genetic diversity into your offspring, so sometimes (there's variation with the who and the when, I'm sure) the desire to mate with a 'bad boy' kicks in. Also, any sons who inherit that mating strategy may be quite reproductively successful themselves.

[PhDP]

Of course women prefer helpful mates for long term relationships; but cuckoldry is also more common than you probably think. I think the latest estimate was that 10% of human males are cuckolded - for every 10 fathers out there, one of them is raising a child that is not his and he doesn't know it. If nothing else, human males have many behavioral traits that are meant to protect against cuckoldry, and I don't think these traits would be so prevalent if it was not a significant barrier to reproductive success.

 

Well, I would have to look at my references, but from what I can remember, in most societies the rate of genetic monogamy was above 90%, I think it's close to 98% in Occident. And even 10% is, in fact, not that much, in truth, it's very low...

 

My personal theory is that the "bad boy" represents a roving stranger male, someone who is definitely outside of your kin group. Mating with such a male is a good way to introduce some genetic diversity into your offspring, so sometimes (there's variation with the who and the when, I'm sure) the desire to mate with a 'bad boy' kicks in. Also, any sons who inherit that mating strategy may be quite reproductively successful themselves.

 

My personal guess is that the 'bad boy' strategy targets female of low quality. Women are generally not willing to sleep with anyone, but women with low self-esteem are much more likely to do so.

 

Lastly, I think modern society is fundamentally hostile to this kind of strategy; contraception and the emphasis on education are certainly not going to help.

[Paralith]

Well, I would have to look at my references, but from what I can remember, in most societies the rate of genetic monogamy was above 90%, I think it's close to 98% in Occident. And even 10% is, in fact, not that much, in truth, it's very low...

 

Low, but it happens. But the frequency isn't the whole story - for human males, even one instance of cuckoldry is extremely costly to their fitness, considering the large investment of time and resources a family man puts into each of his (usually few) offspring - much more so than most other animals.

 

My personal guess is that the 'bad boy' strategy targets female of low quality. Women are generally not willing to sleep with anyone, but women with low self-esteem are much more likely to do so.

 

But if the 'bad boys' target only low quality females, then their offspring will also be low quality, and eventually, the strategy would probably be selected out. So I'd have to disagree with you there.

 

Lastly, I think modern society is fundamentally hostile to this kind of strategy; contraception and the emphasis on education are certainly not going to help.

 

But modern society has only existed for the blink of an eye in terms of human evolution. The genetic bases of our behavior most certainly did not evolve in this context, and though they can be mitigated their influence cannot be dodged entirely.

[Ladeira]

Sincerely, I hate shallowness and it doesn't help in my social life...

[ecoli]

 

But modern society has only existed for the blink of an eye in terms of human evolution. The genetic bases of our behavior most certainly did not evolve in this context, and though they can be mitigated their influence cannot be dodged entirely.

I think that the ability for out behavior and psychology to respond to societal pressures has been shaped by evolution, however.

 

While we could still 'revert' to traits more reminiscent of our pre-human ancestors, the vestiges of this are minimal because our societies, and their ability to enforce social cooperation are really strong. (and it's interesting to look at nations that don't have as much law and order - crime rates, esp rape and murder). The people who live there aren't genetically different, but they usually have corrupt governments which limits their ability to bring 'criminals' into line.

[Edtharan]

Also, there is the question of quality, why would an intelligent, beautiful, confident woman be satisfied by these so-called 'bad boys' ?

Well it would show intelligence on the part of the "Bad Boy". If they can get around and out think the "Good Guy", then that shows an ability to understand how someone else thinks, resourcefulness and creativity. All these are traits that are favoured by humans (but not the only ones).

 

Humans are social animals, so if you understand how others think, it gives you an edge in social situations as you cna guess at how others will respond.

 

Resourcefulness show that you can exploit the environment to achive your ends, this might be to "Get some", or it might be to get some food. Resourcefulness is often used as a fitness selection in many different animal species.

 

Creativity is very desired in humans. We praise artists. While making art, you are not actually engaged in the basics of survival. This shows that an artists/creative individual has enough resource to spare that they don't need to constantly seek it out. Such individuals, especially if they are not tied down to a specific locale (like a roving bad boy) send a clear signal that that individual is good at surviving.

 

All these traits are very desirable and so are being selected for in the form of Bad Boy behaviours.

 

The "good guy" who is willing to stick around show that they are capable of holding territory, but not all offspring will be able to get a territory to hold. So if an offspring is capable of working around those that hold territory (the bad boys), then they have a distinct advantage.

[Paralith]

I think that the ability for out behavior and psychology to respond to societal pressures has been shaped by evolution, however.

 

And I agree. But what is still up for debate, in my view, is how much societal pressure alone will override, en masse in a population, basic behavioral drives that have existed in our ancestors for a very long time. But I don't know the answer so I won't debate it at the moment.

[iNow]

But what is still up for debate, in my view, is how much societal pressure alone will override, en masse in a population, basic behavioral drives that have existed in our ancestors for a very long time. But I don't know the answer so I won't debate it at the moment.

 

Societal pressure rarely overrides behavioral drives (at least, not effectively or healthily). When the natural urges get suppressed it tends to result in multiple neuroses and also very odd, unpredictable, and "explosive" behavior (where the person just can't control it anymore, and the proverbial dam breaks).

 

What tends to happen more often is people learn how to engage in that same behavior, just without getting "caught." They learn to engage in the behavior undetected, as opposed to just stopping the behavior itself.

[CDarwin]

I'm not disputing the result, but I don't think it has any broad implication. Genetic monogamy, which is, in a way, the only relevant form of monogamy, is ridiculously high for humans and women tend to favor men with "feminized" faces (related to good parenting skills).

 

Except when ovulating, supposedly. Females would seem to want their children fathered by masculinized males and then raised by their feminized mate.

 

Or at least if this study is right (and it says that the evidence is equivocal). I don't have any acumen in neuroscience to be able to tell.

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xh514w2101rg6rw5/

[iNow]

Societal pressure rarely overrides behavioral drives (at least, not effectively or healthily). When the natural urges get suppressed it tends to result in multiple neuroses and also very odd, unpredictable, and "explosive" behavior (where the person just can't control it anymore, and the proverbial dam breaks).

 

I just recalled an analogy I was told by a very bright researcher whom was going for her PhD when I knew her.

 

Emotions and urges are like balloons, filled with air, in a pool of water. The harder you try to force the balloon under the water, the more forcefully and violently it comes back to the surface.

 

 

 

 

Except when ovulating, supposedly. Females would seem to want their children fathered by masculinized males and then raised by their feminized mate.

There are quite a lot of useful references at the below. It's overall a good summary (with citations) for the discussion going on above. Bold mine.

 

 

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_41/ai_n6032940/pg_10

A definitive study of human cuckoldry rates has not been conducted, although it clearly happens (Potthoff & Whittinghill, 1965). Essock-Vitale and McGuire (1988) found that about 20% of American women reported engaging in at least one extra-marital affair and that some of these relationships resulted in pregnancy. Bellis and Baker (1990) found that when women initiated an infidelity it often occurred around the time of ovulation. For this sample, 7% of the copulations during the time of ovulation were with an extra-pair man, and these relationships were less likely to involve the use of contraceptives than were copulations with their social partner. Although definitive conclusions cannot be reached at this time, it appears that men are deceived by their partners into raising the children of another man, that is, cuckolded, about 10% of the time (Bellis & Baker, 1990; Flinn, 1988a; Gaulin, McBurney, & Brakeman-Wartell, 1997; McBurney, Simon, Ganlin, & Geliebter, 2002). The issues are complex, however, as the rate varies significantly across cultural settings and socioeconomic status. Sasse, Muller, Chakraborty, and Ott (1994) reported that nonpaternity rates were 1% in Switzerland, but others have reported rates greater than 20% in low socioeconomic settings (Cerda-Flores, Barton, Marty-Gonzalez, Rivas, & Chakraborty, 1999; Potthoff & Whittinghill, 1965). It is also possible that some of these men are aware of the nonpaternity of the children they are raising and thus have not been technically cuckolded.

 

The dynamics of women's EPCs appear to be influenced by hormonal fluctuations. In particular, women as a group show systematic changes in sexual fantasy and attractiveness to extra-pair men, among other sex-related traits, around the time of ovulation (Bellis & Baker, 1990; Gangestad & Thornhill 1998; Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002; Geary, DeSoto, Hoard, Sheldon, & Cooper, 2001; Macrae, Alnwick, Milne, & Schloerscheidt, 2002; Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton-Voak et al., 1999; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). Women are not only more likely to fantasize about (Gangestad et al., 2002) and sometimes engage in an affair during this time (Bellis & Baker, 1990), but they are also more sensitive to and attracted by male pheromones. Gangestad and Thornhill (1998; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999) found that the scent of facially symmetric men was rated as more attractive and sexy than was the scent of less symmetric men but only during this fertile time frame. Penton-Voak and colleagues found that women rated masculine faces--those with a more prominent jaw--as especially attractive around the time of ovulation (Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton-Voak et al., 1999). As noted above, scent, facial symmetry, and a masculine jaw bone may be proximate cues to a man's genetic fitness (Shackelford & Larsen, 1997).

[pioneer]

Sex for males and females is different. There is social stigmatism for a girl getting too much. It is not as bad as it used to be for women. If a girl wants sex, she can get it easier than a guy. It harder for a guy to go up to the average girl and say, buy dinner and movies and you can have sex with me. The payment is suppose to go the other way. A nice guy doesn't know how to negotiate the price. The bad boy he is able to lie, coax, bull, and cheat for a much better value. Many pay with lies and looks.

 

Another aspect is some girls just want sex with no attachment. The nice guy is more likely to do the right thing and think in terms of a longer term connection. The bad guy doesn't want any attachment. He may not even call back. He is into quantity. The bad guy is very obvious what he wants. The nice guy wants the same thing, but is trying to be less obvious and respectful. The bad guy is looking at her chest while he talks and the nice guy is making good eye contact. There is less ambiguity and complication.

 

Back to the stigmatism. The bad boys are worse than what a girl may feel in terms of the bad due to guilt and inhibition. If she calculates bad, she will feel less bad around the bad boy and can go farther, all the way to nasty. Ask any woman who has had a bad boy if she reached nasty. The bad guy is still worse, and to him this is expected and nasty normal, so less inhibition. With a nice guy there is too much good to cover as much nasty ground. I am not talking about relationships but quick fixes.

 

When it is time to settle in a marriage the good guys win. He might get a slightly used car driven fast on weekends. Hopefully the skill set that was learned by the women will be brought into the relationship to give the nice guy some of those bad boy rides. Not all women are like this. I am not stereo typing, but the topic was girls who like bad boys.

[PhDP]

I really like this topic, unfortunately, it's quite hard to have a cold, rational discussion about this in the "real world". Just as a convention, I'll use hypermales for "mascualinized males" and "good fathers" for "feminized males", to make the distinction clear between the two strategies... Also, I won't quote Paralith but I'll answer her points.

 

Except when ovulating, supposedly. Females would seem to want their children fathered by masculinized males and then raised by their feminized mate.

 

I read many studies about this, but it comes down to this, hypermales will be more fit than good father iff;

 

1.1 Women start relationships based on this, which is not the case because we know women prefer good fathers for long-term relationships.

 

1.2 Women get into relationships with good fathers, but cheat on them to have children from hypermales.

 

For some obscure reasons, the hypothesis #2 is often cited, but I never found any serious argument in favour of #2. It doesn't make any sense for two good reasons;

 

2.1 Women might feel attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, but it only matters if they actually cheat on their husband, and if they get pregnant.

 

I think it's a good case of a just-so story, some have assumed that if women were attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, it was to get the best of both world, a good father and "good genes".

 

It makes sense, but in the real world it leads to two predictions;

 

2.1.1 Genetic monogamy must be low. It's very hard to estimate sexual monogamy, but it's very easy to estimate genetic monogamy, and it is ridiculously high, close to 100% in Occident. So, in practice, women don't get "the best of both world", they do have children with their husband, not with strangers. This is the main problem with the "best of both world hypothesis".

 

2.1.2 Women cheats more on their husband if they are "good fathers". I don't think this is true. Actually, I'm not a specialist, but I think women often cheat on their husband because they feel their partner is not sensible to their need, because they have trouble communicating. These are exactly the traits that women tend to associate with hypermales.

 

2.2 Also, it doesn't make sense because it would assume that hypermales are more fit, and they obviously are not. The current trend is toward feminization, the "good father" strategy is clearly winning. In fact, some people think that male homosexuality is caused by this strong pressure toward feminization.

[Paralith]

I read many studies about this, but it comes down to this, hypermales will be more fit than good father iff;

 

1.1 Women start relationships based on this, which is not the case because we know women prefer good fathers for long-term relationships.

 

1.2 Women get into relationships with good fathers, but cheat on them to have children from hypermales.

 

For some obscure reasons, the hypothesis #2 is often cited, but I never found any serious argument in favour of #2. It doesn't make any sense for two good reasons;

 

2.1 Women might feel attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, but it only matters if they actually cheat on their husband, and if they get pregnant.

 

I think it's a good case of a just-so story, some have assumed that if women were attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, it was to get the best of both world, a good father and "good genes".

 

It makes sense, but in the real world it leads to two predictions;

 

2.1.1 Genetic monogamy must be low. It's very hard to estimate sexual monogamy, but it's very easy to estimate genetic monogamy, and it is ridiculously high, close to 100% in Occident. So, in practice, women don't get "the best of both world", they do have children with their husband, not with strangers. This is the main problem with the "best of both world hypothesis".

 

2.1.2 Women cheats more on their husband if they are "good fathers". I don't think this is true. Actually, I'm not a specialist, but I think women often cheat on their husband because they feel their partner is not sensible to their need, because they have trouble communicating. These are exactly the traits that women tend to associate with hypermales.

 

2.2 Also, it doesn't make sense because it would assume that hypermales are more fit, and they obviously are not. The current trend is toward feminization, the "good father" strategy is clearly winning. In fact, some people think that male homosexuality is caused by this strong pressure toward feminization.

 

PhDP -

 

For starters, extra pair copulation (mate with the hypermale and cuckold the good father) is common and well documented in other species of sexually reproducing animals, especially birds. So the strategy itself has long proved to be more than a just-so story. Nor does it require, as you seem to think it does, that genetic monogamy must be low. Not every female will partake in EPC every time she has children, because then the good fathers would never pass on their genes and they would soon go extinct. Species in which EPC is a fitness risk have good fathers with strategies to prevent EPC. Some bird males, when their female returns to them after a suspicious absence, will peck at their mate's vaginal opening in order to expel any other male's semen that might be in there.

 

Have you ever wondered why so many traditional cultures are very strict on the behavioral rules for women? It's because these cultures are male dominated, and the men do not want to be cuckolded, and they formed cultural stigmas to aid in the prevention of EPCs.

 

The point about different mating strategies existing in one species is that these strategies exist in a stable balance with each other - if they didn't, one or the other would be completely selected out. Though I'm not sure why at this point, current human behavior and culture have probably created an environment in which the balanced frequency for the success of hypermales is relatively low - existent, enough to sustain itself, but low.

 

(For a good example of balanced alt. mating strategies, look up side-blotched lizards.)

[CDarwin]

I really like this topic, unfortunately, it's quite hard to have a cold, rational discussion about this in the "real world". Just as a convention, I'll use hypermales for "mascualinized males" and "good fathers" for "feminized males", to make the distinction clear between the two strategies... Also, I won't quote Paralith but I'll answer her points.

 

 

 

I read many studies about this, but it comes down to this, hypermales will be more fit than good father iff;

 

1.1 Women start relationships based on this, which is not the case because we know women prefer good fathers for long-term relationships.

 

1.2 Women get into relationships with good fathers, but cheat on them to have children from hypermales.

 

For some obscure reasons, the hypothesis #2 is often cited, but I never found any serious argument in favour of #2. It doesn't make any sense for two good reasons;

 

2.1 Women might feel attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, but it only matters if they actually cheat on their husband, and if they get pregnant.

 

I think it's a good case of a just-so story, some have assumed that if women were attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, it was to get the best of both world, a good father and "good genes".

 

It makes sense, but in the real world it leads to two predictions;

 

2.1.1 Genetic monogamy must be low. It's very hard to estimate sexual monogamy, but it's very easy to estimate genetic monogamy, and it is ridiculously high, close to 100% in Occident. So, in practice, women don't get "the best of both world", they do have children with their husband, not with strangers. This is the main problem with the "best of both world hypothesis".

 

2.1.2 Women cheats more on their husband if they are "good fathers". I don't think this is true. Actually, I'm not a specialist, but I think women often cheat on their husband because they feel their partner is not sensible to their need, because they have trouble communicating. These are exactly the traits that women tend to associate with hypermales.

 

2.2 Also, it doesn't make sense because it would assume that hypermales are more fit, and they obviously are not. The current trend is toward feminization, the "good father" strategy is clearly winning. In fact, some people think that male homosexuality is caused by this strong pressure toward feminization.

 

Your lens is a bit ethnocentric. All of that refers to modern, more-or-less Westernized populations with birth control as a factor. Sexual monogamy would be much closer to genetic monogamy if there was no birth control.

 

And you can actually refer to a real world examples of females making different choices in terms of long-term mate and short-term affair. Consider the Ache people of Paraguay. There good hunters don't generally enjoy higher status or accrue more power as a result of their kills. There are specific social mechanisms, begging and teasing, that are designed to prevent hunters from becoming too powerful and dominating the group. What hunters do enjoy, however, is greater success in affairs with women. When surveyed, women don't report a preference for hunters as husbands, but they do as lovers. Now, I haven't seen that correlated with masculinity or ovulation cycles, but it's a proof of concept. Women do seem capable of having affairs with an eye to improving the genetic standing of their children.

 

That's presented here: Hunting Ability and Reproductive Success Among Male Ache Foragers: Preliminary Results. Hillard Kaplan and Kim Hill. Current Anthropology, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 131-133

 

I'm not necessarily cheerleading for the "ovulating females like hypermales" hypothesis. I'm just saying.

Edited June 27, 2008 by CDarwin

[SkepticLance]

Paralith

You obviously have a good understanding, and I agree with your balance, or equilibrium, concept.

 

You should remember, though, that the 'hypermale' has two, not one, reproductive strategies. He is into sex with any woman that agrees, as well as his own well established relationship. Thus, he has his average 2.1 children with his wife, and another 0.2 children in illicit relationships. The 'good father' on the other hand, has 1.9 children with his wife, and none outside that relationship.

 

Clearly, the 'hypermale' strategy will win in the long run. Thus, whatever qualities are regarded as 'sexy' by women will be bred over time into the male population.