Saturday, September 12, 2009

Guys who (say they'll) suffer for their girls get more sex, have more kids

The percentage of male respondents who strongly agree they would rather suffer personally than have their lovers suffer in their stead, by political orientation (N = 619):

Conservative74.6%
Moderate69.9%
Liberal59.3%

Feminists, conservative guys are the most willing to take it on the chin for you. I suppose this reveals a deep chauvinism on their part for being unwilling to treat you as an equal, so audaciously putting your well-being before their own. They're probably more likely to hold the door open for you and pay for your dinner on the first date, too. Oh the patriarchy!

The question has only been posed once, in 2004, which is unfortunate since it serves as a good indicator of what side of the putative alpha-beta dichotomy a respondent finds himself on*. Being openly willing to suffer for a lover is clearly the mark of a hapless beta. If you're engaged in pumping-and-dumping, the girl is in the process of suffering for your pleasure even as the GSS question is being considered. Your answer is obvious.

However, that hapless beta is having more sex (albeit with fewer people)--sustaining a long-term relationship and getting married helps here--and leaving more children than the self-valuing alpha who looks out for number one. The frequency of sex** (N = 347), median number of partners since age 18 (N = 337), and number of children sired (N = 476) among men 30 and older, by whether or not they strongly agreed that they would prefer self-suffering to the suffering of a lover:

AlphaBeta
Sex frequency2.633.20
Women since 1865
Children1.792.07

In The Mating Mind, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller shows kindness to be the most universally desired attribute in a prospective partner. Roissy argues that women are delusional in claiming as much and that self-confidence is what they really get wet over. For a certain subset of promiscuous clubbers, this is probably the case. The data presented above, however, suggest that in general women in fact do have a reasonably good sense of what they want in a man.

So are conservative men more beta than liberal men are? By game metrics, probably so (they are more evolutionarily successful, after all), although I would not stretch this to the point of suggesting that conservative guys are less likely to be leaders of other men. Based on personal experience I'd say that, if anything, when it comes to being the AMOG conservative men are overrepresented.

Parenthetically, both kindness and self-confidence are desirable. The question instead is one of primacy (though those of a mind similar to Roissy's might argue that kindness is actually detrimental to one's prospects for fornication). I am, though, operating under the inherent biases of the "football coach" type alpha I am.

GSS variables used: AGAPE1(1)(2-5), SEX(1), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), NUMWOMEN, CHILDS, SEXFREQ, AGE(30-89)

* As 69.3% of male respondents express strong agreement with the statement, I elected to amalgamate all other responses, from "somewhat agree" to "disagree strongly", in the alpha category. A 70/30 split, or about 5 betas for every 2 alphas, seems pretty reasonable for an estimate of the male population at large.

** Responses are by range for sexual activity over the past 12 months, from no sex at all on the low end (corresponding to a 0), to 4+ times per week on the high end (corresponding to a 6).

18 comments:

ironrailsironweights said...

In The Mating Mind, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller shows kindness to be the most universally desired attribute in a prospective partner. Roissy argues that women are delusional in claiming as much and that self-confidence is what they really get wet over. For a certain subset of promiscuous clubbers, this is probably the case.

In the Roissy-sphere, promiscuous clubbers indeed are the most desirable women.

Peter

The Undiscovered Jew said...

In the Roissy-sphere, promiscuous clubbers indeed are the most desirable women.

It would help if women would just tell us what they actually want so we could give it to them...

Bill said...

That's interesting, but it reminds me of those kinds of statements by pastors that "married Christians have the best sex lives" or some statement you'd really rather not hear from a pastor/minister. Wholesome Christian sex sounds boring, that's for sure. It's not that it's any different but that it's some kind of awful, "blessed" sex. God blesses our grotesque Christian sex? Come now. That's an exaggeration, but my God.

Bill said...

I'm saying God may well not sit back and smile when *any* Christians are having sex (or any heathens either). Well, it depends. I know it's a questionable thing to say, but they showed this clip, in a documentary, of that pastor from the megachurch in the Southwest, and he was talking about that stuff. Is he the face and voice of God, re: sex...Ted Stevens, I guess his name is?

silly girl said...

Despite ample evidence for the existence of some X% of dissatisfied or dysfunctional mating, there is also ample evidence that the rest are happily enjoying normal healthy lives. A fair number of reasonable intelligent, attractive, agreeable folks find each other and have at least a replacement level of kids, who are very like their parents. Maybe we are just more aware right now of how the percentages of happy vs. unhappy shake out. It would be interesting to know what the percentages used to be to see what progress (however small) the human race is making. I remember an anthropology professor who said that changes in society were adaptive. Sometimes I am not sure if the evidence supports this view. However, if it is adaptive we will see more kids from the happy and less from the unhappy.

MONEY said...

does anybody know how to contact whoever runs this website i would like a updated list of bang for your buck countries?

Bill said...

Yeah, that last comment makes sense. I thought the original posting was a nice one, and I was joking in a random way on an issue that is essentially unrelated to the original posting. I sometimes think of something that I associate with a given concept or statement--one that I've read--and then respond to or joke about things associated with that thing, and, in many cases, none of it is related to the original concept. The thing that I was thinking about was the way I can be individualistic for individualism's sake, almost, when it comes to statements by some Christian pastors about things that I should feel or ways I should look at things, etc. It's not even that I necessarily disagree with the statement by a pastor or clergyman (this was when I was still going to organized services). It's that I have some need to put my own spin or develop my own individual take on things. It can get so it sounds needlessly belligerent, almost, when I communicate online.

Anonymous said...

" In the Roissy-sphere, promiscuous clubbers indeed are the most desirable women. "

In a big city, the majority of attractive women are promiscuous clubbers, so what to do?

Audacious Epigone said...

Bill,

Free association evinces an intelligent mind, even if I don't know what the hell you are talking about :)

Silly girl,

Well put. It seems that in the hysteria over a supposed seismic shift in sexual norms this is dismissed or simply forgotten.

Money,

I will do so shortly. It should be finished by the end of next weekend at the latest.

FuturePundit said...

Women want more alpha masculine guys for one night stands. Women's ideals for short term relationships are different than women's ideals for long term relationships.

Also, some of those women in long term relationships cheat and when they do they probably do it on average with more alpha guys.

ironrailsironweights said...

In a big city, the majority of attractive women are promiscuous clubbers, so what to do?

If that's actually true. A couple months ago I saw some GSS statistics, either here or at Inductivist, which showed the average number of sex partners for women in the Sex and the City demographic - well educated white women in the 20's and 30's living in large cities. From what I recall, the average was surprisingly low, and only a small minority had twenty or more lifetime sex partners.

Peter

Audacious Epigone said...

Peter,

This is the post you are referring to.

MagicofEden said...

Oh the patriarchy! I'm sure you know by now, feminism isn't all about being a bitch.

...,the girl is in the process of suffering for your pleasure... It's true. Women lie naked and vulnerable every time love is proposed (and for enough women, prolonged eye contact is enough to make you a 'lover') in hoping being that vulnerable, accesability will earn a commitment. Living as a feminist only says I'm not willing to suffer that vulnerability (because being vulnerable is torture) if you won't suffer a little also. It means the feminist respects herself to expose that much emotion cavalierly without reciprocation.

I would argue that your "alpha" isn't strong enough to be vulnerable to the extent of suffering so it stands a woman wouldn't offer her sex without that promise of reciprocity.

Audacious Epigone said...

Magic,

So would you argue, then, that feminists prefer conservative chivalry over subjugation (or misogyny or whatever you want to call it) and egalitarianism?

MagicofEden said...

Based on the ussumption that any act of chivalry is done sincerely and not for vanity. Opening doors and walking on street side of a walkway or crying at a Hallmark moment are cute put on's but do nothing to boost you to the level of alpha.

To be the perfect alpha, you need to take notes from Sir Percy Blakeny.

Anonymous said...

What you think about news - GOPers Hold 'Prayercast' to Ask God to Stop Health Reform ?
Wanna hear your opinion

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

I hope God listens. I'm not counting on him, though.

Polly said...

Quite effective info, thanks so much for the post.