# What's wrong with women's taste in men? (Darwinian Edition) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768 "2008-02-15T18:02:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/61 "2008-02-18T00:56:56Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] It takes time to bear and raise a mammal. She does well to emphasize quality over quantity. [/quote] I’m not saying it’s better to mate with anything that moves, just that it can be good to take advantage if she sees a good set of genes. Keep in mind that if she’s partnered with the dominant male in the group, she has the resources and security to raise extra offspring. > [@](#): > > She’s probably better off to wait until he actually is in charge. The guy who’s good at looking good but can’t really back it up is all too common. Like brazil84’s puerile comment about Bill Clinton, this is just an example of how discussions of evolution are overwhelmingly colored by people’s own personal experiences and biases. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/62 "2008-02-18T01:04:52Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] … this is just an example of how discussions of evolution are overwhelmingly colored by people’s own personal experiences and biases. [/QUOTE] What about it did you find flippant? It was intended to be a serious comment. My point is that quick visual judgements of male fitness may well be less reliable than a serious trial of strength between contenders for the alpha male position. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/63 "2008-02-18T02:15:04Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I agree. And what’s interesting is that even today, even among thinking humans who go to college, instinct informs peoples’ actions to a large degree. For example, imagine some guy who is a fast talker, good with the ladies, who goes into politics, rises to a high position, and starts getting action 6 ways to Sunday. Because of birth control and abortions he may very well end up having only 1 child (let’s call her “Chelsea”). According to his instincts, he’s completely satisfied. And yet the point of those instincts has been completely perverted. [/QUOTE] Instincts don’t have a “point.” They only have incidental and self-perpetuating effects. There is no such thing as “perverting” an instinct because instincts have no “purpose” which _can_ be perverted. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/64 "2008-02-18T03:47:04Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Instincts don’t have a “point.” [/QUOTE] Really? Would it be wrong to say that, for example, the “point” of the migration instinct in birds is to keep them in habitat where there’s food to exploit? It surely isn’t an incidental thing - a great deal of selection has been necessary to yield a population of blackpoll warblers that muster on Cape Cod each fall, waiting for just the right weather pattern to enable a 3.5-day nonstop flight to South America. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/65 "2008-02-18T04:25:03Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] Really? Would it be wrong to say that, for example, the “point” of the migration instinct in birds is to keep them in habitat where there’s food to exploit? [/quote] Yes, it would be inaccurate to say that. The better access to food is just an incidental benefit to the instinct and therefore the instinct perpetates itself genetically. > [@](#): > > It surely isn’t an incidental thing - a great deal of selection has been necessary to yield a population of blackpoll warblers that muster on Cape Cod each fall, waiting for just the right weather pattern to enable a 3.5-day nonstop flight to South America. It’s all incidental, not goal oriented. Those birds who happen to have the instinct to migrate reproduce and pass on that gene to their offspring. Evolution is not goal oriented and all adaptation is a result of incidentally beneficial mutations. The genes don’t actually care how they’re used. None of them have predetermined “points.” ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/66 "2008-02-18T04:43:44Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It’s all incidental, not goal oriented… The genes don’t actually care how they’re used. None of them have predetermined “points.” [/QUOTE] You’re taking the use of “point” to imply “goal-oriented.” It’s one interpretation, and a fully reasonable one. But to say that the point or purpose of the instinct is to put the birds in food-rich territory is also a way of invoking a very common metaphor. Among a vast number who use it, no less an authority than Richard Dawkins often does. I think these threads would benefit from the stipulation that this metaphor need not be taken to imply that those who use it believe genes have cognition, will, or a view of the future - any more than Dawkins believes this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/67 "2008-02-18T05:00:15Z")
I think “purpose” implies intention. Instinct does not exist _in order to_ get migratory birds closer to food. Migratory birds get closer to food because they just happen to have the migratory instinct. In any case, it cannot be said that non-reproductive sex “perverts the point” of the sex drive because the sex drive _has_ no “point.” Reproduction is an incidentally beneficial effect of the sex drive bit that doesn’t mean that reproduction is the _reason_ for the sex drive or that any intention or goal exists which can be frustrated or “perverted.” ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/68 "2008-02-18T09:33:39Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] Among a vast number who use it, no less an authority than Richard Dawkins often does. Among a vast number who use it, no less an authority than Richard Dawkins often does. I think these threads would benefit from the stipulation that this metaphor need not be taken to imply that those who use it believe genes have cognition, will, or a view of the future - any more than Dawkins believes this [/QUOTE] I totally agree. This exchange is reminiscent of the debate between Richard Dawkins and Mary Midgley over the “selfish gene.” > [@Diogenes](#): > > I think “purpose” implies intention. You may think that, but that’s absolutely NOT what I mean when I talk about the “purpose” or “point” of some genetically informed instinct. When I talk about the “point” or “purpose” of some instinct, I am referring _exactly_ to the “incidental” and “self-perpetuating” effect of that instinct. In other words, I’m simply using shorthand. To use **Xema** ’s words, it’s a useful metaphor and nothing more. Do you believe that it’s appropriate to characterize a gene as “selfish”? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/69 "2008-02-18T09:49:36Z")
And here’s a nice quote from Dawkins from his debate with Midgley: > [@](#): > > I assume that an oak tree has no emotions and cannot calculate, yet I might describe an oak tree as altruistic if it grew fewer leaves than its physiological optimum, thereby sparing neighbouring saplings harmful overshadowing. A biologist would be interested in calculating the genetic and other conditions which would be necessary for such ‘altruism’ to be favoured by natural selection: for instance, it might be favoured if the saplings were close relatives of the tree. Philosophers may object that this kind of definition loses most of the spirit of what is ordinarily meant by altruism, but philosophers, of all people, know that words may be redefined in special ways for technical purposes. In effect I am saying: ‘Provided I define selfishness in a particular way an oak tree, or a gene, may legitimately be described as selfish’. Now a philosopher could reasonably say: ‘I don’t like your definition, but given that you adopt it I can see what you mean when you call a gene selfish’. But no reasonable philosopher would say: ‘I don’t like your definition, therefore I shall interpret your statement as though you were using my definition of selfishness; by my definition your concept of the selfish gene is nonsense, therefore it is nonsense’. This is, in effect, what Midgley has done: ‘Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological’ (p. 439). Why didn’t she add to this witty little list, for the benefit of quantum physicists, that fundamental particles cannot have charm? It seems to me that **Diogenes** ’ argument is unreasonable in a similar way. He has jumped into this discussion with his own definition of “purpose” and “point,” and essentially argued that my claim is incorrect using HIS definitions. Even though it’s fairly obvious that I am using a different definition. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/70 "2008-02-18T13:13:14Z")
Saying that genetic behavior has a “point” is like saying “the point of glass fragility is to create hazardous shards that would deter anyone from dropping it.” Taken as pure shorthand in some limited contexts it’s convenient and inconsequential, but generalized any further than that tends to obfuscate cause and effect. It also invites the invocation of the naturalistic fallacy. If nature clearly has a “point” in its actions, then anyone who acts “against nature” is automatically on the defensive. In the case of the so-called ‘selfish gene’, I would say this is a specialized case taken in limited context. Arguably, if genes can even be said to have any ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’, it is selfishness alone. They appear to have no guiding principle except to pass themselves along, even at all odds to the organism’s own well-being. So I would say that until you’re as well-published as Dawkins, or if you’re talking about genes seeming ‘desire’ to pass themselves along, then you ought to be extremely precise about how you use terms like ‘point’ and ‘purpose’. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/71 "2008-02-18T13:58:31Z")
Several people have posted in this thread that money did not exist in our evolutionary history, and therefore women who marry rich men do it as a conscious decision. I’ve no doubt some women do this as a conscious decision, but many others, I suspect, simply have an attraction to high _status_ and ‘money’ is a good modern-day indicator of status. And I’m further postulating that ‘status’ is something that would’ve been important to our ancestors too, the same way it is for many other primates. Other indicators are fame, respect and popularity. And what do you know – all these things are generally attractive to women too (and anyone who thinks “well, duh!” to this, may I point out that these attributes have little to no effect on how attractive a woman is to a man). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/72 "2008-02-18T14:04:10Z")
Even among some primates, there are females who will have sex in exchange for gifts of food from males. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/73 "2008-02-18T14:45:18Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] In the case of the so-called ‘selfish gene’, I would say this is a specialized case taken in limited context. [/QUOTE] Though it certainly isn’t Dawkins only use of this kind of analogy. > [@](#): > > Arguably, if genes can even be said to have any ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’, it is selfishness alone. They appear to have no guiding principle except to pass themselves along. You appear here to invoke an analogy. Genes have no guiding principles - there’s a chemical process by which they are replicated; their environment controls which are passed along. > [@](#): > > So I would say that until you’re as well-published as Dawkins, or if you’re talking about genes seeming ‘desire’ to pass themselves along, then you ought to be extremely precise about how you use terms like ‘point’ and ‘purpose’. Your point about the value of precision is certainly valid. But expecting amateurs to exhibit more of it than does Dawkins seems seriously naive. Analogy and metaphor can be found in much writing on most subjects. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/74 "2008-02-18T14:57:25Z")
Back on the topic of mating selection, here’s an interesting post (#5, by astro) from [this current GQ thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455996). [This was interesting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan) > [@](#): > > Bimodal Male Development > Adult male orangutans exhibit two modes of physical development, flanged and unflanged. Flanged adult males have a variety of secondary sexual characteristics, including cheek pads (called “flanges”), throat pouch, and long fur, that are absent from both adult females and from unflanged males. Flanged males establish and protect territories that do not overlap with other flanged males’ territories. Adult females, juveniles, and unflanged males do not have established territories. A flanged male’s mating strategy involves establishing and protecting a territory, advertising his presence, and waiting for receptive females to find him. Unflanged males are also able to reproduce; their mating strategy involving finding females in estrus and forcing copulation. Males appear to remain in the unflanged state until they are able to establish and defend a territory, at which point they can make the transition from unflanged to flanged within a few months.[8] The two reproductive strategies, referred to as “call-and-wait” for flanged male and “sneak-and-rape” for the unflanged male, were found to be approximately equally effective in one study group in Sumatra,[9] though this observation did occur during a period of instability in flanged male rank and unflanged male mating success may be lower in Borneo.[10] It’s interesting that female choice seems relevant in only one of the two modes. It appears that males contribute little or nothing to the raising of young. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/75 "2008-02-18T15:12:36Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] Though it certainly isn’t Dawkins only use of this kind of analogy. You appear here to invoke an analogy. Genes have no guiding principles - there’s a chemical process by which they are replicated; their environment controls which are passed along. Your point about the value of precision is certainly valid. But expecting amateurs to exhibit more of it than does Dawkins seems seriously naive. Analogy and metaphor can be found in much writing on most subjects. [/QUOTE] But “point” and “purpose” don’t even work as metaphors. They’re highly misleading and the notion that those “points” can be “perverted” is just factually wrong. There is no such thing as a “wrong” use for a gene or an instinct. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/76 "2008-02-18T15:13:37Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] Saying that genetic behavior has a “point” is like saying “the point of glass fragility is to create hazardous shards that would deter anyone from dropping it.” [/quote] That’s a bad analogy, because it’s an incidental relationship with no self-perpetuating or selective aspect. Let me ask you this: Suppose somebody asked “What’s the purpose of adrenalin?” Which is a better answer: (a) To give you an extra boost in physical performance when you are in an emergency situation; or (b) there is no purpose at all. > [@](#): > > So I would say that until you’re as well-published as Dawkins, or if you’re talking about genes seeming ‘desire’ to pass themselves along, then you ought to be extremely precise about how you use terms like ‘point’ and ‘purpose’. It’s one thing to say “I disagree with the way you are using the words ‘point’ and ‘purpose,’” but using you definitions, your point is correct." It’s another thing to say “I disagree with the way you are using the words ‘point’ and ‘purpose,’ so I will use my own definition to interpret your statement and using my definition, your statement is wrong. Therefore you are wrong.” The latter statement – which is essentially **Diogenes** ’ position – is not reasonable. And by the way, this sort of shorthand is very common. Here’s a Cecil Adams collumn called “What is the purpose of pubic hair?” [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1\_064a.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_064a.html) > [@](#): > > Various theories have been advanced regarding the purpose of pubic hair. For example, I have a Smithsonian monograph here–nothing like a little light reading in the john, you know–that presents the novel thesis that pubic and axillary (armpit) hair gives babies something to grab onto. My baby does this, it is true, but then she is 29 years old. > > More plausibly it has been suggested that pubic hair helps to retain certain glandular secretions that are supposed to be a powerful aphrodisiac. The nation’s indefatigable corps of monkey testers has determined that armpit perfume has a direct stimulatory effect on the primate libido. The alluring fragrance of moldy T-shirts is thus accounted for, I guess. Clearly more scientific research is called for. Maybe you need to tell Cecil that pubic hair actually has no purpose whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/77 "2008-02-19T07:26:07Z")
The age range and wealth has never been important to me. I was nine years older than my first husband and earned more. And I never asked my second husband about his finances before we married. This is an age when women are expecting to become the economic equals of men. And the children will be _his_ children, not just hers. If she wants him to stop thinking in the old stereotypical ways, then she must set an example. The age range of the men I have been attracted to spans about fifty-two years. And as I have grown older, they have grown older. I’m sixty-four and I think that seventy year old Robert Redford would do in a pinch. But not all of the celebrities that I have found sexy have been particularly attractive and none of them are young. I think the premises of the OP might be flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/78 "2008-02-19T10:59:12Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Maybe you need to tell Cecil that pubic hair actually has no purpose whatsoever. [/QUOTE] The fact that you’ve chosen something that: a) Doesn’t have a clear purpose and b) Of the theories posited for its purpose, it fails to satisfy its purpose in the modern world (e.g. It doesn’t make us sexually attractive). Shows that there _can_ be difficulty in assigning a purpose to some biological features. In any case, I think there’s a big difference from considering something to have a purpose, based on its specific characteristics, and what I would consider to be a value judgement of saying the purpose of genes is to perpetuate themselves. [QUOTE=Zoe] I think the premises of the OP might be flawed. [/QUOTE] I doubt it. I can’t google it right now but I suspect it would be easy to find stats to support the view that most women are attracted to men somewhat older than themselves and at least as successful as they are. Still, a lot of the language in this thread, and the OP itself, have generalised and made it sound as though women are all of one mind. This (at least in my case) was not the intention. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/79 "2008-02-19T11:48:58Z")
[QUOTE=Mijin] The fact that you’ve chosen something that: a) Doesn’t have a clear purpose and b) Of the theories posited for its purpose, it fails to satisfy its purpose in the modern world (e.g. It doesn’t make us sexually attractive). Shows that there _can_ be difficulty in assigning a purpose to some biological features. [/quote] Of course there can be. So what? If the purpose of pubic hair were clear and obvious, why would Cecil bother discussing it? It’s one thing to say that the “purpose” can be difficult to ascertain. It’s another to say that it doesn’t even make sense to talk about such a “purpose.” Let me ask you this: Suppose somebody asked “What’s the purpose of adrenalin?” Which is a better answer: (a) To give you an extra boost in physical performance when you are in an emergency situation; or (b) there is no purpose at all. > [@](#): > > In any case, I think there’s a big difference from considering something to have a purpose, based on its specific characteristics, and what I would consider to be a value judgement of saying the purpose of genes is to perpetuate themselves. What exactly is the difference? And please, let’s stick with the actual statement I made, which is basically that birth control and abortions can potentially pervert (actually frustrate would be a better word) the purpose of a man’s instinctual sex drive. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2008, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768/80 "2008-02-19T11:52:19Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] This is an age when women are expecting to become the economic equals of men. And the children will be _his_ children, not just hers. If she wants him to stop thinking in the old stereotypical ways, then she must set an example. [/quote] Perhaps, but generally speaking, status and success mean a lot to most women – so much so that it hardly needs a cite. If I may ask, what were the jobs/professions of your husbands? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-womens-taste-in-men-darwinian-edition/437768.md?page=5)