# Solving the problem of intermale aggression **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2017, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721 "2017-06-11T19:11:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/41 "2017-06-19T11:44:20Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Do you think that most men don’t want confident women? > … > We are in the midst of, shall we say, a pioneering time for redefining gender roles in US society. We’ve established now that women can do a majority of the things that men can do, and well-educated women in particular are expected to have careers in addition to child-rearing (which actually adds to a woman’s burden, IMO, since men aren’t exactly taking up 50% of the child-rearing slack, but that’s another discussion.) Because of all this, I think people (men and woman alike) are being more thoughtful about what they want and expect from a partner, and about what they are willing to give in return. It has become more and more a choice than a default assumption, which is buttressed by the evidence of declining marriage rates and people marrying later in life, when they have both established themselves independently. > > This pioneering period is an excellent time for us to consider which gender-based assumptions are socialized and which can be attributed to differences in physical characteristics. The declining birthrate may give us a clue about what women actually want to be doing vs. what they have been socialized to do for centuries. We can also make similar examinations of what men are actually doing (although I would argue that it’s harder for men to break out of traditional gender roles than it is for women. While economic barriers affect the freedom of both men and women, there is still a significant _societal_ barrier impeding men from making real choices about what they want to do.) > > While the male disposition toward violent behavior is well-established, it usually pops up in pretty specific contexts, i.e. poverty, unemployment, violent socialization, and periods of high stress. This suggests to me that our perceived agency, the relative safety of our environment, and our quality of life has a lot to do with the choices we make, whether we are men or women. > \*\* > Given all this, I’m not going to look at a handful of snapshots of current trends in gender roles in Western civilization and conclude it’s all deeply ingrained in our biology.\*\* Bolding mine. This is a truly fine post. IOW, I agree with it. 🙂 This echoes very much the life of myself and my wife. And also her sister and sister’s ex-husband. in this era of exploration of roles and goals, there are more opportunities for people to live the life that fits them, not the cookie-cutter pink or blue life society wants to hand them. At the same time, it affords more opportunity for two people meandering around the role-space to get confused about what they want and what’s on offer and become disenchanted mid-life with the pairing they picked. As with racial (in-)equality, any system that artificially subordinates a big chunk of one big group equally raises up the status of the lower echelons of the other group. IOW, if we artificially subordinate 90% of women, then a bottom 10%ile man still “outranks” half the populace. Which is a mighty comfortable place to be. For the men. Here’s an interesting analogy. In today’s modern world we have an infinite supply of low cost food. As a result, obesity rates are off the charts. Because humans have evolved biologically as hunter/gatherers living off marginal food supplies from marginal lands all over the planet. We’re built for food scarcity yet now find ourselves drowning in the stuff. So which is “human nature”: To scrawnily survive famines, or to be obese? Clearly the answer is “It’s both, depending on the environment”. But a superficial politics-laden analysis wouldn’t see it that way. It’d say something like “Scrawny is the old natural way, obesity is a modern aberration.” Given that we’re going (we fervently hope) to keep our plentiful cheap food coming UFN, the goal today ought to be “How can we best use the environment we \*do \*live in, not the one we \*used \*to live in?” Switching back to male/female issues. … What works best in an environment of low birth rates, high education, civilized rule of law nearly everywhere, and non-dangerous non-strenuous occupations for nearly all workers is what we should be (are?) aiming for. It wasn’t what we were biologically evolved for, but it’s where we are. And with luck it’s where we will stay. So we better learn how to live here. The good news is our memes and hence societies can evolve far faster than can our genes and hence our bodies. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/42 "2017-06-19T12:58:01Z")
Thanks. I’m glad someone found my point in all my meandering. To a certain extent this all boils down to our inability to fully understand human behavior, and by extension, the human brain. We don’t know why things are the way they are, we can only glean hints as society changes over time. Intermale agression is only a problem if expressed in a destructive way. In that regard I agree with astro. As I said been before, we have some clue what makes men more likely to behave violently, and if I might generalize, it all comes down to surviving vs. thriving. Since you’ve used obesity as an example, there are many who contend that obesity can’t possibly be genetic since it’s a relatively new phenomenon. This ignores the constant interplay between genetics and environment, better known as epigenetics. I could see it totally possible that men have some genetic disposition toward violent behavior that is only expressed in the presence of certain environmental triggers. So the solution is to ameliorate the conditions that trigger that gene expression. Could it be that lower levels of testosterone in men may be the result of ameliorating such conditions? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/43 "2017-06-27T09:54:16Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Thanks. I’m glad someone found my point in all my meandering. > > To a certain extent this all boils down to our inability to fully understand human behavior, and by extension, the human brain. We don’t know why things are the way they are, we can only glean hints as society changes over time. > > Intermale agression is only a problem if expressed in a destructive way. In that regard I agree with astro. As I said been before, we have some clue what makes men more likely to behave violently, and if I might generalize, it all comes down to surviving vs. thriving. > > Since you’ve used obesity as an example, there are many who contend that obesity can’t possibly be genetic since it’s a relatively new phenomenon. This ignores the constant interplay between genetics and environment, better known as epigenetics. I could see it totally possible that men have some genetic disposition toward violent behavior that is only expressed in the presence of certain environmental triggers. So the solution is to ameliorate the conditions that trigger that gene expression. Could it be that lower levels of testosterone in men may be the result of ameliorating such conditions? Another thing to look at is MAO-A. There was a study by Moffitt & Caspri which basically found that those with a certain variant were far more likely to be violent if they were also raised in an abusive home environment. So that suggests that eliminating abusive home environments is a good idea (aside from the obvious moral reasons). Longer term it might be something that could be addressed with [genomic editing](https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/ethical-issues-in-genome-editing-using-crisprcas9-system-2155-9627-1000266.php?aid=70914). > [@](#): > > But, the efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 technique increases the possibility to intervene somatic cells in order to match genetics to our life interests. Many phenotypic characteristics have a genetic component, apart from environment, which could be intervened. For example, the technique could be used to enhance performance of athletes or to prevent violent behaviour or diminish addiction. Generally, gene therapy looks to improve the health of a patient for its own benefit, but it may happens in the future that the criminal justice system mandate genome editing of genes related to violence for repeat offenders or violent dangerous criminals [47]. ---
**Author:** ![RupieDupie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@RupieDupie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RupieDupie)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/44 "2017-06-30T05:12:22Z")
> [@Scott\_H](#): > > In what ways does the instinct of intermale aggression manifest itself in human interactions? Is this a problem that, as a species, we should be concerned with solving? If so, how could we go about solving it? What state of affairs might legitimately constitute the problem’s having been solved? > > Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk From what I understand, starting from the basis that females are distributed according to resources and males are distributed according to females, to help reduce intra-male aggression in primates, a female strategy would be to align their oestrus cycles, therefore one dominant male cannot “guard” all receptive females against other subordinate males. Over evolutionary time it would be beneficial for males to evolve towards monogamy and away from sexual dimorphism, towards living within kinship societies. Evolving these mechanisms does not help in the short-term, but, from what I also understand, males subjected to a boost of pro-lactin after siring an infant gives them a “hit of caring” for their young. I am sure there could be a way to dose up males with pro-lactin and through Google Glasses have other people appear as infants. ---
**Author:** ![RupieDupie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@RupieDupie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RupieDupie)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2017, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/46 "2017-07-01T04:37:59Z")
> [@Emily\_Blunt](#): > > Think influence and riches in the hands of ladies and we will have no compelling reason to search for second-hand specialist through mating with “alpha” guys. That is “the fear”, somehow the ladies have to lull the gents into a false sense of security and then BAM! Amazons with male slaves! ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Scott\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_H)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/47 "2017-07-01T18:16:21Z")
[QUOTE=SpiceWeasel] Intermale agression is only a problem if expressed in a destructive way […] I could see it totally possible that men have some genetic disposition toward violent behavior that is only expressed in the presence of certain environmental triggers. So the solution is to ameliorate the conditions that trigger that gene expression. [/QUOTE] That could absolutely work – by modifying the social environment we might be able to subdue our genetic tendencies toward aggression. And you’re right that we should not shift the responsibility entirely onto the violent male, as some advocates of nonviolent resistance do – actually, violence is _clearly_ necessary in some scenarios, as to defend one’s children from physical assault. Conversely, however, I question whether violence is the only problem. What about sadness, pain, or discomfort resulting from intermale aggression? A lot of people talk about world peace. I never hear anyone champion world happiness. Of course we can obtain world peace if we slap our enemies in straight jackets and laugh at them in mental hospitals – but it would obviously thwart world happiness that they lived in discomfort. [QUOTE=SpiceWeasel] Could it be that lower levels of testosterone in men may be the result of ameliorating such conditions? [/QUOTE] As a sex-loving male (despite my culturally-enforced lifelong virginity), I can see the benefits but also the drawbacks of decreasing testosterone. Studies suggest that testosterone not only boosts sex drive but also assists in such tasks as spatial and mathematical cognition. Could it be possible to increase testosterone and yet decrease violent encounters? [QUOTE=Chen019] Another thing to look at is MAO-A. There was a study by Moffitt & Caspri which basically found that those with a certain variant were far more likely to be violent if they were also raised in an abusive home environment. So that suggests that eliminating abusive home environments is a good idea (aside from the obvious moral reasons). Longer term it might be something that could be addressed with genomic editing. [/QUOTE] Your idea of longer-term genomic editing seems to concord with Einstein’s to direct the course of evolution. Though I would not be surprised if people focused more on the other contributing factor (abusive homes) against any kind of self-directed evolution at all: in any discussion of eugenics, people are always quick to play the Hitler card (as if that were the only scenario they could imagine!). [QUOTE=RupieDupie] From what I understand, starting from the basis that females are distributed according to resources and males are distributed according to females, to help reduce intra-male aggression in primates, a female strategy would be to align their oestrus cycles, therefore one dominant male cannot “guard” all receptive females against other subordinate males. Over evolutionary time it would be beneficial for males to evolve towards monogamy and away from sexual dimorphism, towards living within kinship societies. [/QUOTE] I’m not sure what you mean in your first statements – how are males and females distributed according to either resources or each other? Evolving toward monogamy might be feasible – I recall Marilyn vos Savant proclaiming she was “for” it on the cover of one book – but I think there could be drawbacks to maintaining rigid monogamy at the present time. In response to **Wesley Clark** ’s comments that intermale aggression was about mating opportunities and those without such opportunities were prone to violence, I asked if sex were somehow a “need.” Our culture insinuates that sex _is_ a need – in snarky comments toward those who aren’t “getting any” and in love songs. That leaves open whether sex is truly biologically a “need” without which we might suffer some kind of ill physical or mental effects, and if so, monogamy runs the risk of leaving some people destitute of this “need.” Before concerns about STDs became prevalent, we used to have brothels that regularly provided sexual services to clients. Certainly, we haven’t found a cure for every STD and even administering protection or cure for those for which we have might be resource-intensive. Yet with other advancements in technology I wonder if STD contraction can somehow be institutionally guarded against. I’m not, of course, demanding that women toil as men’s sex slaves – that would run against the aim of universal happiness within a culture – but legalized consensual sexual services could in theory play a role in the reduction of the violence and crime we tie to intermale aggression. [QUOTE=RupieDupie] Evolving these mechanisms does not help in the short-term, but, from what I also understand, males subjected to a boost of pro-lactin after siring an infant gives them a “hit of caring” for their young. I am sure there could be a way to dose up males with pro-lactin and through Google Glasses have other people appear as infants. [/QUOTE] I’ve heard similar things about the hormone oxytocin, and that might be a solution for males unfit to reproduce in order to calm their aggressive instincts and help them lead more contented lives. If we administer it to just everyone, however, we run the risk of creating an evolutionary dependency on the drug, which could have the opposite effect and make matters worse. But you’re definitely onto something with the idea of using “cuddle hormones” as drugs (just keep them away from the greedy pharmaceutical companies!). [QUOTE=Emily Blunt] Think influence and riches in the hands of ladies and we will have no compelling reason to search for second-hand specialist through mating with “alpha” guys. [/QUOTE] I like your attitude – both yours and **ZPG Zealot** ’s. What observed differences are there between patriarchal and matriarchal societies? I have read about one or two such societies, but have never looked into the details of the comparison. **astro** , you began your reply with: [QUOTE=astro] With all due respect your baseline assumptions are sophomoric as are your attempts to parse this out into some meta theory paradigm of human behavior. There is not a single “culture” of any size on this planet where the majority of human females of that culture are not differentially more attracted to aggressively confident men. [/QUOTE] When **SpiceWeasel** directly challenged you on this point, you then guarded your assertion with the word “believe”: [QUOTE=astro] I believe these preferences are cross cultural and to the extent any tendencies can said to be “wired in” they are. You are welcome to disagree. [/QUOTE] This isn’t just a question of whether you believe or know that women universally have a preference for the “aggressive, confident man” (as you substitute in lieu of “bad boy,” where I had concentrated specifically on the word “bad”). It is a question of whether you are even willing to discuss the issue in objective, scientific terms. Looking carefully through your posts, I see that you occasionally reuse certain expressions referring to men of this “confident” nature. These include the notions of “stepping up,” “not taking shit,” and “handling the situation.” The problem is that despite a few examples you give (an illness in the family, an unexpected bill, or the “asshole neighbor”), you haven’t reduced these concepts to behaviors that can be physically observed. When I refer to physically observable behaviors, think punching, head-cocking, or chest-butting – or something that can be seen under a microscope. Until the terms we use are reduced to such concepts, they don’t mean anything scientifically. [QUOTE=astro] The notion that you are going to fix these innate male and female predispositions short of some eugenics scenario […] [/QUOTE] Stop there, mid-sentence. This is exactly Einstein’s suggestion and the one with which I replied to your original post in this thread – and to which you did not respond. I will repost again his remark to Freud (this time with proper spelling): “Man has within himself a lust for hatred and destruction … It is a comparatively easy task to call [this passion] interplay and raise it to the power of collective psychosis. Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex of factors we are considering, an enigma that only an expert in the lore of human instincts can resolve … Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness?” (_Einstein: A Life_, Denis Brian, 232) The question is, is there anything wrong with a Eugenics scenario? More generally, are you motivated at all to remedy the suffering of others, suffering that is partially a result of our aggressive male instincts? Like **Wesley Clark** , you allude that you are and you mention the possibility of redirecting these instincts for the betterment of society: [QUOTE=astro] The best any culture can do is have strong ethical and moral guidelines for how these drives can be expressed and have options to channel those impulses in a socially positive direction. [/QUOTE] However, by “socially positive” you could mean anything from the universal happiness I brought up earlier to a dystopia in which the less fortunate are festively mocked. When people use such terms it is often hard to tell. ---
**Author:** ![RupieDupie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@RupieDupie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RupieDupie)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2017, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/48 "2017-07-01T23:21:08Z")
In the mammal world females are usually distributed by resources, food, water etc, while the male distribution is highly influenced by the female distribution. But I think humanity becomes a lost opportunity if it is only dictated by biology (on a gross level it is). And evolutionary driven adaptations unfortunately would take years to solve the problem, but gene technology could help. We have the unprecedented ability to mess around with our genes, we could make a hermaphroditic society. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Scott\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_H)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/49 "2017-07-02T01:06:47Z")
Actually, I just now realize I’ve been making a silly mistake with the Einstein quote. I completely missed the word “mental.” So Einstein must have been referring to some kind of upbringing by which the instincts of violence can be remedied. (It figures, I guess, since he was writing to Freud and not Darwin!) But whether or not Einstein agrees, I think controlling man’s _actual_ evolution is a possibility that should not be discounted. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/50 "2017-07-02T03:12:32Z")
> [@Scott\_H](#): > > In what ways does the instinct of intermale aggression manifest itself in human interactions? Is this a problem that, as a species, we should be concerned with solving? If so, how could we go about solving it? What state of affairs might legitimately constitute the problem’s having been solved? > > Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk [Data](https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/) is always worthwhile to bring to a discussion. Short version: it may not be solved but despite the false impression many have we have come a long long way to solving it. Consistently throughout history homicide is a crime committed by young men and mostly upon other young men. It is the single best marker as the ultimate of intermale aggression. That has not changed much. But over the scope of modern civilization the rates of homicide have dropped dramatically. Detailed graphs and charts at the link. > [@](#): > > … European homicide rates have dramatically decreased over the last millennium and have remained steadily low over the past 50 years. … Homicide rates in Japan have steadily decreased over the past century. … The homicide rate in the US has fallen dramatically over the past few centuries. … Not sure what has worked so well but it has worked. Meanwhile to the question “[of men and mayhem](http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21688587-young-single-idle-males-are-dangerous-work-and-wedlock-can-tame-them-men-and-mayhem)” the argument is made that status and identity, work and wedlock, reduce male violence: > [@The Economist Jan 23rd 2016](#): > > … A study by Christopher Blattman of Columbia University and Jeannie Annan of the International Rescue Committee offers hope. They looked at more than 1,000 ex-fighters in Liberia, where a civil war had just ended. This was not a promising group. Besides knowing how to kill people, they had few skills. Only 27% of its members were literate, even though they had spent an average of six years at school. All were making a living from crime: mining illegally or stealing rubber from plantations. And war was beckoning them again. A conflict had broken out across the border in Ivory Coast, and both sides were recruiting Liberian veterans with signing bonuses of $500-$1,500—a fortune for men who were making an average of $47 a month. > > There was every reason to expect that these men would soon dig up their buried AK-47s. But a non-profit called Action on Armed Violence offered half the men a package of agricultural training, counselling and farming kit (such as seeds, piglets and tools) worth $125, in two instalments. The results were striking. The ex-fighters who were helped to farm got better at it, so they spent more time farming and less on illicit work. They made $12 a month more than the control group and showed less interest in going to fight in Ivory Coast. They were 51% less likely to say they would sign up as mercenaries for $1,000 and 43% less likely to say they had met with recruiters. > > As the world ages, it is becoming more peaceful. Since medieval times the murder rate in most Western countries has fallen by a factor of nearly 100, estimates Stephen Pinker in “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. The past decade has seen the fewest war deaths of any in recorded history. Hard though it is to believe in the age of Islamic State, the world is heading for what Mr Urdal calls a “geriatric peace”. As far as what proscriptively can be done to further advance these already dramatic historic decreases … it is implied above that a perceived relative lack of status by young males drives violent intermale aggression and such a position is [empirically backed up.](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/does-inequality-cause-crime/381748/) > [@](#): > > There’s a good amount of research from all over the world that suggests that places with pronounced income inequality are more likely to have high rates of violent crime, a finding that makes intuitive sense: the wider the socioeconomic gap, per Becker’s 1968 model, the more gains potential criminals perceive. (Not to mention, the more frustrated poorer criminals will be with society.) > > But this new study takes into account the fact that it’s hard to gauge a stranger’s income—the information that potential criminals are acting on comes in the form not of pay stubs, but of proxies like expensive cars and fancy clothes. “A neighbor’s income and bank account balance,” the authors write, “are by no means perfectly observable for academic researchers or individuals considering committing crimes.” Luckily for academic researchers, though, there exist reams of data about crime and consumer spending, two topics the federal government cares deeply about. … > > … Hicks and Hicks (whose relation is unclear) found that the link between conspicuous consumption and high crime rates is much stronger than the link between income inequality and crime. > > That said, **when spending is visible, the rates of only certain types of crimes tend to spike. Theft and vandalism, interestingly, aren’t significantly more present, but murder and assault are.** … (Bolding mine.) A society that values decreasing severe wealth and power inequalities and that discourages ugly displays of wealth, that gives all of its members, including young adult males, a sense that they have some meaningful status and identity, will have less violence. And the happiest countries in the world (by various indices), Norway, Denmark, and Iceland, are renown for having policies that attempt to address wealth and opportunity inequalities. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2017, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/51 "2017-07-02T06:58:49Z")
Way to class up the thread, man. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/52 "2017-07-02T15:33:38Z")
Assuming addressed to me, thank you **Spice Weasel**. I hope you still agree after this addition. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > I’m surprised how quickly this became the women’s fault. > > :dubious: > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > He’s not wrong, though (I assume he’s a he :)), except possibly in terms of degree. How many women have ‘bad boy syndrome?’ … > [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Concentrate power and wealth in the hands of women and we will have no need to look for second-hand authority through mating with “alpha” males. It is _possible_ that the interplay between cultural and biological evolution has in fact been responsible for the long term decrease in intermale aggressiveness. [Higher testosterone levels](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/) correlate with aggressive behaviors and there has been a documented gradual [decrease](http://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc-idUKKIM16976320061031) in adult male testosterone levels matched for age. There is a [great deal of research](https://www.livescience.com/8779-fertile-women-manly-men.html) that substantiates that females (statistically and in general) prefer more masculine and aggressive males, specifically when they are most fertile and specifically for short term relationships, and prefer the less aggressive less highly masculinized males as choices for long term relationships. IF higher and lower young adult male testosterone levels (and thus greater or decreased aggressiveness) is an inheritable trait, then long term societal structures that have encouraged more stable and faithful long term marriage partnerships may have decreased what was a longer term trend that provided more aggressive, higher T, males with greater reproductive fitness. And the extremely wide availability of the birth control pill over the past 60 years _may_ have had significant impacts in many ways. Yes, even that short a period of time can have impacts with something that widely used. 1. As per above women would more likely consciously choose the less aggressive male as the long term mate but the more aggressive one for the fling; control over fertility decreased the odds that those flings would result in children thus less passing on of those genes over the genes for the less aggressive males they are choosing as long term partners. 2. Increased control over their reproductive choices has gone hand in hand with greater economic freedom for women - as per above more power and wealth in their own hands thus less drive for the alpha male. 3. The OCP suppresses ovulation. And as a result [“[w]omen who are on the birth-control pill may be more likely to pick provider types over aggressive, masculine specimens”](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/conditions/birth-control-pills-may-make-women-less-attracted-to-studly-males/article4199829/) This is not “fault” BTW. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/53 "2017-07-02T15:57:58Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > 1. The OCP suppresses ovulation. And as a result [“[w]omen who are on the birth-control pill may be more likely to pick provider types over aggressive, masculine specimens”](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/conditions/birth-control-pills-may-make-women-less-attracted-to-studly-males/article4199829/) > > This is not “fault” BTW. Interesting. I’ve read that women have different sexual tastes when they are on the Pill vs. off of it. Although this link is a great example of why I hate evolutionary psychology. 1. Do a study. 2. Observe the results. 3. Make up the reason for the results. 4. Pretend that the reason itself is the actual finding of the study. Plus there always has to be some dick quote like this: > [@](#): > > To put it another way: “You fall in a long-term relationship with the caring, investing wimps and then you poach the good genes from the highest-status [masculine]guys. And the wimps hopefully make good stepdads and raise your kids,” said Geoffrey Miller, an associate professor of human sexuality and evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico. It’s such a crass way of looking at human relationships. And yes, you class up any thread, **DSeid** , even when I don’t agree with you. Which is rare. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721/54 "2017-07-02T16:55:50Z")
Thank you **Spice Weasel** and yeah, the “just so story”, post hoc explanations, criticisms of evolutionary psychology is often (not always) warranted. And unless one is discussing weakly interacting massive particles as a dark matter candidate the word “wimp” (and to some degree “good” to describe genes) is out of place in a serious scientific context. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solving-the-problem-of-intermale-aggression/788721.md?page=2)