WHAT'S THE DEAL with all this butt sex?

So, when my female friends ask me sex questions a la: "Why do guys ALWAYS like/want to such-and-such?", often my answer comes back to porn. Meme theory gives us a great way to think about how ideas and thoughts transmit from person to person through society over time. So take that as the starting point for what I'm about to say. If you're unfamiliar with meme theory, then get on wikipedia already. Jeez.

So, let me just make a full disclosure up front: I used to be REALLY INTO Catherine MacKinnon. What she said just made a lot of sense to me. Minus her claim that p0rn is (literally) rape, which I don't think anybody takes seriously. Anyway, I'm mostly over her now (thankfully), but some of what she said still resonates with me. Namely, the idea of porn as an instrument of speech makes a lot of sense to me.

So, my basic thought is that since guys use p0rn as their wanking fantasies, what they see on the screen will come to influence the sorts of things they will want to do in their actual life, since the point of fantasies is that you want to act them out. MacKinnon actually cites a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting this is true; her point is to claim that it's a dangerous trend for women, who are often injured attempting to replicate the exotic sex acts their husbands see professionals enact on film.

(Remember, meme theory!)

Now, my only evidence that more (straight) people to-day are going for drives on the Hershey Highway than in days gone by is anecdotal. And of course anecdotal evidence means nothing; however, I'm pretty confident that if there is some kind of survey out there on this topic, it would show a difference in anal sex habits between people to-day and people, say, in Kinsey's surveys.

If this is true, then my theory is that porn is at least partially responsible for causing this trend. I think that's also true for lots of other kinds of sexual behaviour, such as the so-called "money $hot", tit fucking, group sex, etc.

What do you think? Are more people buttfucking these days? And why?

If Women are the Selectors, Why Is Mabeline Still In Business?

Here's something I've been puzzling over to-day:

So, you know that conventional wisdom that people like to dispense about how women are ALWAYS the one who choose the guy? You know: EVEN when it seems like you're the chooser, they say, she was the one who chose you. EVEN when you pursued her out of the other 3.3 billion other females, SHE chose YOU.

Or so they say.

Well, it's true. 100%. But why?

Now, I know you girls would love to think that it's something YOU'RE doing to maintain this position as the sexual selectors, but really it's just nature at work. It's called Bateman's Principle, which states that whichever gender must expend the most resources in reproducing, that gender will become a limiting resource over which the other gender will compete.

So, imagine I'm a savage in the African jungle 10,000 years ago. If I needed to reproduce as quickly as possible, it would take me about 2 minutes, 20 calories, and however much else it takes to replenish the lost seminal fluid. But my putative partner, on the other hand, must take 2 minutes + 9 months (assuming my super sperms are capable of INSTANTANEOUS fertilisation-ha!), plus the massive energy and resources to carry the child to term. Then assume I'm a deadbeat dad, as men are biologically programmed to be (when it's reproductively viable), and that's an additional time and effort expenditure that she is left with, whereas I'm off breaking hearts in some other part of the jungle.

Hence, women are the limiting resource over which men will compete, according to Bateman's Principle. It's called sexual selection, and that's the reason why the males of most species are ornamented, like peacocks: because women CHOOSE those mates who are competing against rivals. And they choose based on the traits they find most appealing, which is explained by two competing theories: sexy sons theory and good genes theory.

Darwin's theory was that one example of human ornamentation are our beards and other body hair, but modern evolutionary biologists have begun to get more creative. One currently influential theory is that male ornamentation went internal, and that our brains and the products thereof (viz. art, literature, culture, etc.) became male sexual ornaments. (Which could explain why those fields have always been dominated by men, even after the rise of feminism.)

So that's all very interesting, and that's the subject of the book I'm presently reading: The Mating Mind. But what I'm puzzling over now is why, if Bateman's Principle applies to humans, are WOMEN the ones who most visibly ornament themselves. On a deeper level, I agree with the biologists that Bateman's is working on humans, but the striking reality that I see in the streets is that women spend hours on their hair, nails, shoes, clothes, demeanour, etc. And men spend a fraction of that time on those accoutrements. Guys, just go out in the streets and notice the women who are walking around in that familiar way that just screams "I'm a 10--look at me!". See how put-together they are. See how they carry themselves. And for a much more interesting experience, try to notice what happens when you DON'T look.

So why, I'm wondering, are women the ones who are doing the most manifest ornamentation if you're the ones who are the sexual selectors. If getting guys to hook up with really was as easy as showing up at a bar and being willing (as many smug women on-line are wont to report), then why aren't you showing up draped in velvet, wearing flip-flops with unwashed hair? Because guys would STILL compete, according to Bateman's. Yet guys are the ones who turn up unshaven, wearing dirty t-shirts and jeans, and yet manage to pull the girl who spent 2 hours primping before going out. What's going on??

Any suggestions?

Tip for Men and Women #44: The Best Way to KILL an Online Interaction

By all means, if you want to NEVER meet a person that you've been interacting with on line, exchange IM names and start chatting on line.

Obviously, that's not a hard-and-fast rule; I've met people in the flesh after we did the IM thing; however, the vast majority of people who asked for my IM name I never ended up meeting. Funny how that works, right?

Incidentally, I'll never ask for your IM name, ever. That's because I really don't care for the medium, since people tend to forget that they're having an IM conversation and wander off. But also, I understand that the longer you spend interacting in cyberspace, the less likely it is that we'll actually meet in real life, which is really the rule to be learnt in this post. It seems to me that drawing out on line conversations only reflects inertia or hesitance to actually meet, which doesn't portend a successful coupling, obviously.

So, really this advice applies not only to IMs, but also to long, drawn-out e-mail conversations. Which are great, say, if you don't live within a subway ride of each other. But if you do, why not just get together and have that conversation in real life? Or even if you do live in different towns, why not talk on the phone?

Naturally, I'm not suggesting that you have NO on line interaction. I also find it somewhat strange if a person wants to meet straightaway, with minimal interaction, based only on what we read in each other's profiles. Myself, I've got a great "crazy or incompatible filter", but it takes a couple e-mails for it to do its job. So interact on line only as much as is necessary for your own filters to work. Then, as soon as you're comfortable, get together.

Tip for Men and Women #43: How to Not Be a Deadbeat Dater

It's been discussed in countless blog entries that I've seen, but yet the non-committal, often callous flakiness with which people generally seem to approach online dating persists.

Okay, here's the thing: online dating, as I've discussed before, is really OKAY. It's not weird or creepy anymore. And no, you're not too good for it or "above it". There's therefore no reason to approach it with the kind of off-handed pre-emptive defeatism that I see so often in people's profiles. See Tip for Men and Women #27: Online Dating is Humbling? for more information.

Why do I care? Well, your defeatist approach engenders what I like to call Deadbeat Dater Behaviour ( DDB ). And I very seriously doubt that anybody exhibiting DDB will have much success online, in which case your failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some symptoms of DDB that you should avoid:

1. The Rebound: Don't hop online straightaway after a bad breakup, unless you're just looking for a no-strings fuck. It's a drag when you take the time/effort to get to know somebody, and just when you're starting to like them, they make vague excuses about "not being ready to date" or whatever.

2. The Flake-Out: If you make plans to meet somebody, you should in no event cancel the plans. You shouldn't make plans to meet anybody you're not sure you would want to spend some time with. Making plans and then vacillating as to whether you actually want to meet only shows that you're immature and indecisive. And if you cancel the plans, add flaky to that glowing list of personality traits.

3. The Cut-and-Paste: This is mostly for guys. Read profiles, don't just send out form e-mails based on seeing the person's photo and thinking they're hot. E-mails can have a formula, but should not be cut-and-pasted. See Tip for Men #6: Cutting and Pasting for more information.

4. The Blow-Off: This is mostly for girls because statistically on online dating sites (not any one in particular), guys are the ones who make the first move. Okay, so if you get a message from a guy who has obviously taken the time to write something personal to you, you have to respond, every time. Full stop. Even if just to say thanks but no thanks. This applies a fortiori if you're one of those people who badmouths winks/hotlistings in your profile.

5. The Conversation Trail-Off: Don't just stop writing somebody because your interest has waned. Take 10 seconds and say "it's been nice talking to you, but I'm not interested in going further."

6. The Unfriendly Friend-Seeker: Seriously, the "looking for friends" box should be removed, because everybody ticks it, and nobody (except for the blogosphere, apparently) is actually interested in making friends. This is relevant to 4-5: if you're not romantically interested, but looking for friends, why not strike up a conversation and/or steer it in the direction of platonic friendship? See Tip for Men and Women #20: Really Looking for a Friend? for more information.

7. The Liar: Don't misrepresent yourself, especially in the areas of height, weight, and marital status. Be up-front about who you are and what you want. Maybe your "goods" aren't the most saleable, but if you misrepresent yourself, the "foot in the door" tactic really will backfire every time. See Tip for Women #17: Don't Misrepresent Your Weight and Tip for Men #17: Don't Lie About Your Height, plus all my myriad posts about lying.I'm sure I can think of more, and I hope you'll help me with your suggestions.

Tip for Men and Women #42: You know it's cliche when they name a techno song after it

Sorry, everybody, to rain on your parade, but I'm officially showing the red card to the phrase "walking contradiction" in your profiles. For quite a while now, it's been hovering at the level of something self-important and/or somewhat cheesy that people who harbour delusions about the extent of their individuality* say. Now, however, it's become so hackneyed that you'd really be better off removing it altogether.

You should also think about removing similar phrases evoking concepts such as "dichotomy" or "duality". These more highfalutin phrases, which only exacerbate the self-importance problem, are already starting to appear; plus, it's only a matter of time before the flood of people following this advice retreat into these alternative phraseologies, which really just convey the same connotation.

Right. Get to work, people, both with your profiles and with getting realistic about your "mind viruses".


*Not to be a killjoy, but no matter how individualistic any of us are, we ALWAYS get it from somebody else. Please see Richard Dawkins, et al. for more on meme theory.

Sex, Emotions, & Infidelity Part 2: Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe

Well, to my chagrin, yet again a low response rate to my poll about sex and emotions has divested it of the ability to ground any interesting conclusions. That's partly the reason why I've decided to go global with this blog.

Anyway, perhaps you already guessed the impetus for Part 1 of my Sophie's Choice blog entry. Namely, study after study has demonstrated cross-cultural tendencies for men to feel more jealous and/or threatened/betrayed by his partner's sexual infidelity, whereas women tend to feel more jealous and/or threatened/betrayed by her partner's emotional infidelity.
The six women who took this survey didn't really bear that out, but it is interesting that no men indicated that they'd feel more threatened by their partner falling in love with somebody they weren't bonking.

So, why does the discrepancy obtain? If you've been reading my blog, I think you already know where this is going.

Women and Jealousy: Evolutionarily, women are wired to respond to indicators of strength, ability to provide, ability to protect, sexual acumen. Youthful appearance, physical bulk/strength, 1-1 hip-to-waist ratio, etc. are all important, but critically, the indicators to which women respond with feelings of sexual attraction are more often non-physical than they are in men. Men, on the other hand, tend to respond to indicators that the woman will be able to bear children, which usually tend to be physical indicators such as youth, smooth skin, .7 hip-to-waist ratio, etc. For this reason, although height and weight preferences differ across cultures, no human culture has ever sexually preferred old or very young females to females in their sexual prime (say, 16-35).

Anecdotal evidence means nothing, but try to think of couples (in which there was a noticeable disparity in physical attractiveness) you know. Which is more common: (1) couples where an average or below-average looking guy was with an above-average or beautiful looking woman, or (2) couples where an above-average or handsome looking man was with an average or below-average looking woman? Probably the former, if your experience is like mine. By the same token, how many couples do you know where the female is significantly older than the male? And the converse, where the male is significantly older than the female? That happens all the time! If you want some sociological data on this point, just browse profiles and see what age ranges people select.

So, in theory, the things women find attractive in men tend to be indicators of the ability to protect, support, and provide access to high-quality sperm. And which sort of infidelity is more of a threat to these things that women seek their men to provide? You guessed it: emotional. That's because if a man falls in love with another woman, the chances are much higher that he'll abandon his partner in favour of his lover, in which case the woman will lose his protection, his support, and access to his sperm.

A purely sexual fling, on the other hand, although there is a risk that an illegitimate child will result (which could, especially in the modern world of child-support etc., force the man to divert certain resources to the lover to help raise the illegitimate child), the likelihood that the man will abandon the partner for the lover is extremely small. Hence, the theory goes, women are more jealous of emotional infidelity, less so of sexual infidelity.

Men and Jealousy: There's a saying in Africa that goes "Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe". This just reflects the platitude that when a woman gives birth, she KNOWS beyond all possible doubt that she's the mother. The father, however, does not have the same level of beyond-all-possible-doubt knowledge that he is the father. Sociologists have commented again and again that observations of new parents interacting with people being introduced to the newborn child have suggested that people are much more likely to comment that the baby looks like the father than they are to say that it looks like the mother. I find this fascinating, although nobody really seems to know what conclusions this tendency to re-assure fathers about their paternity means.
A problem with the male jealousy response is that falling in love tends to lead to sex much more often than sex leads to falling in love. So, men are right to be jealous of their partner falling in love with another man, because that is likely to lead to sex with the other man. Importantly, however, in the event that both sorts of infidelity obtain, men seem cross-culturally to be much more threatened and/or jealous by the sex side of being cuckolded, rather than the emotional side.

Why? Well, because evolutionarily, the cost to a man of being cuckolded is potentially extremely high, since if one's partner is adept at concealing her sexual infidelity, her partner can be tricked into spending his life (i.e., foregoing reproductive opportunities with other women) and expending his effort/resources raising another man's children. In fact, a widely accepted theory in evolutionary biology is that this is a reproductive strategy that the female body is actually biologically programmed to be competent at undertaking.

And in case you're wondering, this isn't an isolated incident; world-wide, roughly 8-10% of people in the world are estimated to have been raised by men who mistakenly believed themselves to be the biological father of the child(ren) they helped to raise. This statistic obtains even in western society and across socio-economic lines; in fact, this statistic does not even take into consideration children who are aborted, something that would certainly increase the percentage had those children been carried to term, since the desire to avoid one's partner discovering sexual infidelity is a leading motive for women procuring abortions.

In sum, a man's partner's sexual infidelity can be a great threat to the man, genetically speaking, because it could potentially result in him not passing on his genes to the next generation, since he harbours throughout his life the mistaken belief that he has already passed on his genes in the form of "his" children. Hence, men are more jealous and/or sexually threatened by their partner's sexual infidelity than are women, and are less jealous and/or sexually threatened by their partner's emotional infidelity than are women.

Tip for Men and Women #42: You're Not Gettin' Laid 'Cause You Read Too Much Descartes!

Here's a mystery I've been grappling with lately, both with other bloggers and with people in my actual life: why is it that people who are resistant to the evolutionary biological approach that I take to love, dating, and sex seem never to be able to base their Resistance on anything more robust or evidential than their own phaenomenal experience? Case in point, see blogalina's responses to my comments in ***DATE (S) EXPECTATIONS***; no offence intended to her, but this exemplifies the kind of uninformed and uninquisitive Resistance I've been encountering.

I think what is going on is nothing more remarkable than an unwillingness to give up or to otherwise question one's own folk psychological/biological understanding of the world. So, in the area of love/sex, you're resistant to embrace the idea that your genes have programmed you to act in certain ways because the idea that you CHOOSE to do these things is very closely held.

That's your folk psychology at work: when you see somebody that you like, you choose to pursue them or not. You choose when and why to date or kiss or fuck them, to (or not to) cheat on them, to forgive (or not to forgive) their cheating, to marry (or not marry) them, to have (or not have) kids (and when, why, how many), and so on.

Why? Well, because who would have better access to your emotions, desires, motivations, etc. than you, viz. the person who actually experiences them. You experience love/sex, and that's all the data you need; so, why would you need to listen to these biologists who couldn't score in a million years because they're cooped up in the lab studying monkeys and sperm all day long? You don't need to, so you don't listen.

Sound about right?

That's essentially an expression of the Cartesian Principle, which, roughly speaking, states that a thinking being can, via introspection, gain direct access to her mental states. Basically, introspection is the best (and only) way to access one's thoughts without the indirect, mediated, data-tainting intervention of outside observation. This perhaps seems a very intuitive way of thinking; unfortunately, it's a way of thinking that has been THOROUGHLY and univocally discredited throughout both the sciences and the humanities.*

Here's my point: you can disagree with the conclusions (though not the data) of the science, because like all science, it's just theory. However, disagreement should be principled, which means based on more than just your bare intuitions. Otherwise it's just not interesting. But that's just me...

-----
*Quoting from Wikipedia's Entry on the Mind-Body Problem (emphasis mine):

Interactionist dualism, or simply interactionism, is the particular form of dualism first espoused by Descartes in the Meditations. . . . It is the view that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, causally interact with physical states.

Descartes' famous argument for this position can be summarized as follows: Seth has a clear and distinct idea of his mind as a thinking thing which has no spatial extension . . . . He also has a clear and distinct idea of his body as something that is spatially extended, subject to quantification and not able to think. It follows that mind and body are not identical because they have radically different properties.

At the same time, however, it is clear that Seth's mental states (desires, beliefs, etc.) have causal effects on his body and vice-versa: A child touches a hot stove (physical event) which causes pain (mental event) and makes him yell (physical event), this in turn provokes a sense of fear and protectiveness in the mother (mental event), and so on.

Descartes' argument crucially depends on the premise that what Seth believes to be "clear and distinct" ideas in his mind are necessarily true. Many contemporary philosophers doubt this. For example, Joseph Agassi believes that several scientific discoveries made since the early 20th century have undermined the idea of privileged access to one's own ideas. Freud has shown that a psychologically-trained observer can understand a person's unconscious motivations better than she does. Duhem has shown that a philosopher of science can know a person's methods of discovery better than he does, while Malinowski has shown that an anthropologist can know a person's customs and habits better than he does. He also asserts that modern psychological experiments that cause people to see things that are not there provide grounds for rejecting Descartes' argument, because scientists can describe a person's perceptions better than he can.

Common Sins of Online Daters Goes "Online"

Hello to any and all new readers. Below you'll find the entirety of my blog, which I've been posting on another site, entries on the topic of love, dating, and sex, specifically as it relates to online dating. If you want to see the comments and discussion, look up the respective post in its original form:

http://personals.theonion.com/blog/Total_Blam_Blam

Enjoy! And tell all your friends!

Sophie's Choice: S e x, emotions, and infidelity

As a follow-up to The Ultimate Casual Dating Quandary: S e x or Relationship, I'd like to bring some statistics to your attention. A study conducted by J.M. Townsend reached the following results.

When asked "Have you ever continued to have s e x on a regular basis with someone you did not want to get emotionally involved with?", 37% of women answered yes, whereas 76% of men answered yes. The yays were then asked a follow-up question: "if so, did you find it difficult to keep from getting emotionally involved with the person?", to which 22% of women and 74% of men answered no. Cf. David Buss, The Dangerous Passion for more info.

Not enough of you took my survey to make it interesting, but I do find it somewhat interesting that NO men said that they wouldn't have s e x without a committment.Here's a follow-up survey, related both to The Ultimate Casual Dating Quandary: S e x or Relationship and to atypical grrl's (In)fidelity:

If you were in a serious, committed, and monogamous, long-term relationship, which of the following would distress and upset you more:

(a) Discovering that your partner has formed a strong emotional, but non-sexual, relationship with a member of the opposite s e x
(b) Discovering that your partner has begun a sexual, but non-emotional, relationship with a member of the opposite s e x?

(1) I'm a man: Discovering the non-sexual emotional relationship would be more upsetting.
(2) I'm a man: Discovering the non-emotional sexual relationship would be more upsetting.
(3) I'm a woman: Discovering the non-sexual emotional relationship would be more upsetting.
(4) I'm a woman: Discovering the non-emotional sexual relationship would be more upsetting.

Tip for Men and Women #41: Your Best Lies Are the Ones You Tell Yourself

I know I've been harping on about lying lately, probably to the point that I'm sounding like a broken record. Sorry if that's getting old, but it just seems like you people are harbouring lots of misconceptions in this area, and it's my duty as officious blog commentator to disabuse you of those.

Now, however, I'll just gripe about bad profile writing...

So, you all hopefully have at least taken my advice and filled out a complete profile questionnaire, in which case you would have answered the "Best (or worst) lie you've ever told" question. Good for you, but it's only a start; more work remains to be done.

In case you missed it the point of that question is for you to demonstrate that you're not perfect, viz. that you're perfectly willing to admit that you too, like everybody else, lies from time to time. Maybe your lies are of the little, white variety. Maybe your lies are unskillfully crafted or told. But that you do lie and have lied EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE is beyond question. If anybody is unclear or in self-denial about that, please see Tip For Men and Women #33: I LOVE His Gigantic Head! and Tip for Men and Women #37: The Machiavelli in all of us.

That being said, "I don't lie", "I never lie", "I can't stand lying", and other similar responses need to go. For one thing, it comes across as annoying and self-righteous, smacking of "I'm better than you" overtones. For another, as those of you who followed those links to my earlier posts on the evolutionary psychology behind lying now know, it's an exercise in self-delusion to claim that you don't lie. In essence, it's a self-refuting claim, since by making it, you're only lying to yourself (and, I might add, only fooling yourself), the very act of doing which invalidates your claim to exceptionless truth.

An unfortunate side effect is that tongue-in-cheek attempts to be ironic with the statement "I never lie" come across as just another exercise in unctuous, self-laudatory back-patting. Very clever, people, but regrettably, it's lost on us.

A few loose-ends to tie up:

(1) "I'm a terrible liar" isn't really helpful.

(2) Try not to be too much of a killjoy here, just like with the "most humbling moment" box. Be playful and keep it light. In other words, "no, I'm not sleeping with your wife" isn't your best bet here.

(3) Ladies, your dismissive sexual innuendos (e.g., "It's SO big" or "Yes, I need it") make you come across as a bit petulant, which isn't exactly a turn-on. Just saying.

Tip for Men and Women #40: Why is he STILL a Committment-Phobe?

Have any of you women experienced this kind of guy: he's been in a serious relationship for a LONG time (say, over 2 years). Things are going swimmingly; he loves you, you love him, and you're starting to wonder whether this one is "the one".

Say some time passes, things are still happy and loving, but now you're REALLY starting to wonder where this relationship is going, because although you're thinking about long-term plans all the time, it seems like he isn't doing.

We're all mature adults, and sometimes we have to have state-of-the-union type talks with our serious partners. So you decide to have "the talk". You pour out your heart about your desires and expectations and hopes, and are shattered to discover him being evasive and equivocal. He claims that he's "not ready to settle down" or "needs more time". But why? He's never been a player, or the kind of guy who seemed to have that uncanny ability to attract lots of women. Basically, you're his best option, but still he wants to "keep his options open". How exasperating!

The conventional thinking on this issue that's presently extant is, of course, that "he's just not that into you", but as readers of Tip for Men and Women # 32: S/he's just not that into you. (Part 1) already know, I'm not satisfied with that advice. I think that may be helpful in the short term and for more surface-level issues in the relationship, but in order to come to terms with this male response, I think it's important to go deeper.

So, let's consider monogamy and maleness. Evolutionary biologists believe monogamy to be a mating behaviour that developed via the mechanism of female sexual choice. Of course, human sexual behaviour is not as simple as, say, peacock-peahen sexual behaviour, but that rough pattern where the male courts and the female chooses basically obtains. But rather than fancy plumage, what female humans look for are signs of strength and stability, viz. indicators that the male will be able to help care for and support children. (This is important to the female because the physical limitations of only being able to sire one child per annum means that having more sexual partners might lead to her finding a genetically better mate via sperm competition, it will not lead to a greater number of children.) And the strongest indicator of this is the propensity to be monogamous, because a lack of wandering eyes and hands suggests that the likelihood that the male will abandon the mother to care for the children alone is low.

Males, on the other hand, pursue monogamy only because females prefer monogamous males over polyamorous/adulterous males. For men, having more sexual partners is extremely profitable from a genetic standpoint, because theoretically each new mate can yield a new offspring. However, the less genetically viable the man, the less likely that he'll be able to mate with a large number of women. Roughly speaking, the more viable he is, the more partners he can have, because his patent viability will increase the likelihood that women will copulate with him without requiring monogamy (either casually, through polyamory, or through adultery). Seen this way, monogamy and polyamory are just two mating strategies of men, each of which will be more successful for a given man based on whether he is, respectively, more or less genetically viable.

Which brings us back to your commitment-phobic LTR boyfriend. Why won't he settle down with you, even though his outside prospects are limited if not nil? My theory on this is that he's unrealistic about or has simply overestimated his genetic viability. Basically, although his best reproductive option lies in staying with you and being monogamous, his biological wiring to act like a sperm and maximise his number of partners is telling him that he shouldn't settle down. And for whatever reason, he's not a good judge of his own genetic viability, so rather than recognising that his best option is to stay with you and be monogamous, he orients himself as a man who wants to have other sexual partners would do.

This of course just begs the question: why is he a bad judge of his own genetic viability? Probably because he doesn't have strong male figures in his life who educated him in the ways of masculinity, in how to be a mature man. As the line in Fight Club goes: "we're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really what we need."

Now don't get me wrong, mature masculinity and monogamy/settling down do not necessarily go hand in hand. But mature masculinity and, say, self-knowledge and decisiveness do. A man who knows himself well enough to accurate gauge his best reproductive option to lie in eschewing monogamy for polyamory and decisively communicates this to his partners is as mature as a man who recognises his best reproductive option to lie in a monogamous relationship with one woman.

The real problem, then, lies in this commitment-phobic boyfriend of yours, whose immaturity, indecisiveness, and self-unawareness paralyse him with only one in your door and one foot out. My suggestion: it's time to either (1) try to educate this guy, or (2) try to weed him out of the gene pool.

The Ultimate Casual Dating Quandary: S e x or Relationship?

I've been talking with people at work to-day about dating, relationships, and s e x, and although I feel like I've got a pretty good grasp on things (well, better than most my age), my world-view has been a bit thrown by some very unexpected things that I heard.

In order not to taint this survey, I'll hold off on the details and go straight to the question:

When thinking about somebody you really like romantically, which of the following describes your attitude towards the sequencing of s e x and serious relationship, by which I just mean a relationship characterised by "seriousness" and monogamy?

(1) Male: I wouldn't want to have s e x until we start a serious relationship.
(2) Male: I wouldn't want to start a serious relationship with somebody before we have s e x.
(3) Male: Either one happening first is fine with me
(4) Female: I wouldn't want to have s e x until we start a serious relationship.
(5) Female: I wouldn't want to start a serious relationship with somebody before we have s e x.
(6) Female: Either one happening first is fine with me

Tip for Men and Women #39: In the event of an online-dating emergency, show 'em your t i t s!

Let me just say this up front: this is a tip for men and women because it has relevance to both genders. However, can I just suggest again to the men out there that you NOT show 'em your t i t s. With your bare-chested photos, you might as well be short, because you're not going to get any love.
So, I know what you're already saying: "doesn't this post contravene the advice dispensed way back in the early days when you advised against wearing swimsuits etc. in profile photos?" Not really. That advice still stands. I'm just qualifying it.

Basically, here's the score: there are some worthwhile people out there, and there are some worthless people out there. For whatever reason, most of the people I know who do online dating are women, so what I have to go on RE the male experience is my own, which has been that notwithstanding a few deadbeat daters, most people are actually pretty cool. (If you're reading this and we've dated, "deadbeat dater" does not refer to you. Really, you were different.) However, I have been talking with a number of women lately about the demographics of the NYC under-40 dating scene, and again-and-again the claim has been made that the quality of the female demographic is much greater than that of the male demographic. In essence, the claim goes that the manipulative *sshole scale is tipped radically to the side of men.

Now, to be honest, I'm sceptical of that claim, largely because it sounds like a mere expression of a passive, victim mentality, a la "I'm unsuccessful with men, but there's nothing I'm doing that is producing this result". But, for the sake of argument, I'll assume that this claim is true.

If that's true, then, it would behove you to to do whatever you can to discourage responses from the "wrong" guys, whilst encouraging responses from the "right" guys. My thought is that the way to do this is to put together a profile that creates non-physical sexual attraction (in addition to physical sexual attraction) in men. Basically, if you're concerned about manipulative *sshole men, you'd be advised to make him want you for more than the contents of your knickers.

For that reason, I stand by my former advice against posting provocative photos, viz. swimsuit or underwear shots. Online dating sites are like a guy/girl smorgasbord, and so much of our assessment of others is superficial (i.e., based on photos), which is why men and women without photos receive 1/4 and 1/6, respectively, the number of responses as men and women with photos. So, when you post your steamy pics, sure you might get more responses, but most of those will be from the "wrong" guys, viz. guys who do (or would) post topless photos and who will turn out to be manipulative *ssholes.

This all brings me to the reason why I'm writing. Having stated these provisos, I find it very interesting how EFFECTIVE putting up risque photos can be at garnering responses. It's probably no secret that changing up your main photo periodically can increase your number of views. But if you want to try something cool, especially if you're a young woman who has a tame photo of yourself and don't get too many views, try putting up something a bit steamier and see how quickly your number of views goes up.

Case in point. In the past few weeks this has happened to me several times actually. Take your basic female profile with a so-so photo. Since I don't spend too much time looking at profiles anymore, an unremarkable photo often means the difference between whether I look at your profile and whether I go on to the next one. Over time, you come to recognise the "usual suspects", i.e. the people who are always online, browsing, writing, whatever. And once you start passing somebody over, this behaviour becomes self-reinforcing, habitual.

But say all of a sudden, this person replaces her passable photo with something much more provocative, such as a indecorous pose, an a s s pic, a photo of you in a low-cut dress with your t i t s hanging out , or a swimsuit/underwear shot. Instant click! I'm sure any guys reading this can relate. Is it true, are men nothing more than s e x-obsessed disgustoids disguised in human form?

Well, sort of, yes. Here's something that might help you girls who go for more effete, emo-esque guys: if he puts on the affectation of being "above" the physical sexual attraction that motivates the sexual behaviour of more, say, alpha guys, then he's lying. Men, for better or for worse, are biologically wired to respond when we see something our brain finds genetically viable as a potential reproductive mate. Research suggests that this response is actually PRE-CONSCIOUS even, which means that the stimulus produces the attraction response a few nanoseconds before the consciousness is even aware of what's going on.

What's the advice here?

Men: Don't be a manipulative *sshole. But at the same time, don't apologise for being a man. You can pretend not to look, but you'll only be fooling yourself.

Women: If you're a junky for profile views, try putting up a steamy photo. But beware, because you'll get more hits from "bad" guys as well as from the less-common "good" ones.

Tip for Men and Women #38: You need to fire the story-boarder for your Video Intro

One of my regular readers just pointed out to me that my thinky-pieces may be a bit too heavy for people who are inclined to read a piss-take blog like this. So, here's a throw back to the halcyon antagonise-other-online-daters days of my blog.

Okay, people, as far as I can tell, this is pretty much a verbatim transcript of every video introduction out there:

*Camera Image comes up. Person is standing in front of their webcam pressing the record button on their computer. They hurriedly sit on their bed/chair. They nervously brush a hand through their hair and cross their legs.*

Ummmmmmmmmmm, so hi. My name is so-and-so. Ummmm, this is my video introduction, so I hope you like it, ha ha. Ummmmm, I guess you're here, ummmmm, because you liked my profile. Ummmmm, so yeah, I like this and that, and, ummmmmmmm, I'm looking for qualities x and y in a man/woman. Ummm, well, I like doing la-dee-da and whoopy-woo and, ummmmmm, you know, other stuff like that. So, ummmmm, I guess if you like what you see well, umm, send me a message and maybe we'll meet up sometime.

Get the message? You maybe don't need to story-board your video intro, but maybe a rough script of what you want to say wouldn't hurt. Or at least saying SOMETHING substantive would be helpful. The video intro is supposed to be an ultra-personalised way to "show your goods", so since you can't take off your clothes :), you'd better show off your personality, or else all you'll show is your inarticulateness.

Tip for Men and Women #37: The Machiavelli in all of us

A long overdue part two to my post RE: lying. My survey questions apparently didn't pique anybody's interest, but they're still up, so if it's not too much trouble...

So, anyway, where were we? Oh yes: we've got such large heads/brains because we need them to be better liars. This is called the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis, as expounded by Byrne and Whiten in the late 1980s.

**Oh, maybe I ought to have said this at the start: in this blog, we take evolution for granted as "the only theory in town". If you have any sympathy to creationism or intelligent design, feel free to not comment, because I just can't engage uncritical viewpoints in serious debate. Sorry.**

I'm saying this because it's important to remember that no matter how sophisticated we've become, we are, at bottom, animate reproduction machines. Our purpose is not to get a good job or help Katrina victims or have a closely-knit home life etc. Our purposes are to (1) survive and (2) replicate our genes. Everything else follows from this. So, from this perspective, it becomes perfectly clear that there is nothing different in kind between a flower's "deception" of a bee and a human's deception of her neighbour or spouse.

So, here are the broad strokes of the theory: pre-human creatures evolved into beings that found, due to certain physical frailties, that living in a society was the only way to survive. So, although any given being's biological priority is to ensure her own survival and replication, she discovered that helping guarantee others' survival and replication helped to guarantee her own. Yet, importantly, the inherent biological selfishness to value her own survival and replication over that of her neighbours remained intact. This is painfully illustrated in the hypothetical "tragedy of the commons".

So, evolving humans began to learn two things: (1) if I can deceive my neighbours into getting more of the goods that increase the chances of my survival and replication, I can sire more descendants. However, (2), if I get caught in my deception, my neighbours will either ostracise me or kill me. Thus, lying works only if one is a GOOD liar; otherwise, it's better to just be truthful.

As between good liars, bad liars, and truthful people, who will survive and replicate better? You guessed it: good liars, so their genes were passed on, whereas the other ones were systematically weeded out of existence.

Flash forward many generations, and the competition to be the best liar is merciless. Adaptation led to smarter humans who were more adept at deceiving their neighbours, which led to more complex deceptions, which led to further adaptation, and so on. And what physiological change enables this process of adaptation and increased complexity: the brains of humans are getting bigger, more complex, and thus more able to deceive better.

So, how's this for a sun-shiny Monday thought: everything around you: civilisation, technology, rule of law, politics, government, medicine, art, architecture, culture, food, music, sport, cinema, philosophy, literature, etc. are all made possible because our ancestors became very good at lying and deceiving others.

Have a nice day! :)

Tip for Men and Women #36: Yet Another Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

Last Question. See Tips #34-35 for the context.

What percentage of people online that you have encountered personally would you estimate lied and/or materially misrepresented themselves in their profiles or interactions with other online daters?

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%?

Tip for Men and Women #36: Yet Another Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

Last Question. See Tips #34-35 for the context.

What percentage of people online that you have encountered personally would you estimate lied and/or materially misrepresented themselves in their profiles or interactions with other online daters?

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%?

Tip for Men and Women #35: Another Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

Question Two. See Tip #34 for the context.

Have you ever met somebody else who lied and/or materially misrepresented herself in her profile or interactions with other online daters?

(1) Yes

(2) No

Tip for Men and Women #34: A Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

So, I’m sure all of you out there subscribe to Scientific American Mind. Well, I was reading the latest issue to-day, and I came upon an article purporting to blow the lid on the Truth of Online Dating.

Basically, it’s about how widespread lying and misrepresentation are in the online dating world. Self-reporting liars and/or misrepresenters amount for, in one study, 20% of the online population. However, when people are asked what percentage of other people they have found to be liars and/or misrepresenters, the figure jumps precipitously to 90%.

That’s a huge disconnect, obviously. Now, a clear flaw in the article is that the authors never really drive home the impact of the simple fact that misrepresentation and deception is also reflexive, i.e. people have a very distorted self-image. Basically, statistically speaking, if you’re reading this post right now you’re more likely to be of average intelligence or worse, average physical attractiveness or worse, make an average salary or worse, etc. But, for example, the percentage of people who rate themselves as being of below average physical attractiveness is appallingly low. And as those of you taking the NYC subway everyday know, that number should, if we were all more honest with ourselves and others, be MUCH higher.

So here’s my survey:

Have you ever lied and/or materially misrepresented yourself in your profile or interactions with other online daters?

(1) Yes

(2) No

Tip For Men and Women #33: I LOVE His Gigantic Head!

“His MAIN head”, for those of you whose minds are in the gutter. Hopefully any fans of Coupling will appreciate that line.

So, we’ve been on the topic of lying recently. A while back I posted about the sperm-war theory that humans are biologically programmed to cheat on each other. Perhaps you’ve also heard about the theory of why humans have such big craniums.

You know how when you see shows on the discovery channel, and the baby horse or lion pops out of the womb and immediately starts walking around, albeit somewhat tentatively and groggily? And you know how when humans give birth, the baby basically lays around uselessly for months and months, doing little more than reacting to the environment and being waited on hand-and-foot? Well, there’s a reason for that. And the reason is that humans cease gestating in the womb too early, at a point in our pre-natal development at which we’re really not ready to come out yet. So, in a perfect world, we’d be in the womb much longer than we are.

Why?

Well, if we developed to the point at which we could pop out and start walking around and reading Plato, well our giant skulls would rip apart the mother’s birth canal, thus rendering the fertilization of the ovum by the man’s sperm a death sentence for the woman, setting aside the possibility of miscarriage and abortion. It’s very interesting to remember that not so very long ago in western societies (and still to-day in others), birth was still a very dangerous process. So now people don’t want to have kids until they’re 40 or so because they don’t want to be tied down or whatever. But imagine if having a kid carried with it a very real risk that you’d DIE IN THE PROCESS. That’s how strong the biological urge to procreate it. Fascinating!

So, evolution, clever as ever, saw fit to make sure that babies came out earlier, thus decreasing the mortality rate of women giving birth. It also saw fit to ensure that the gestation period balanced perfectly the risk of killing the mother against the vulnerability of a defenceless child, which is why we’re born after 9 months and not, say, 7.

But why, you might be asking, do humans need such large heads?

Well, one very, VERY widely accepted theory of why humans have such big heads is because they aided in our survival. That’s how we rose to the top of the food web, where we presently reside in our predator-free state of bliss. That’s not controversial at all, though, since the operating assumption of evolutionary biology is that EVERYTHING happens for a reason, viz. to aid in our survival.

So, for example, “what about variable testicle size?” I know you’re all saying. Well, that aids survival (both small ones and large ones, for all you size queens out there who are really hoping that the more, ahem, puny men out there will soon be weeded out of the gene pool).

But I digress. The real question here is why having larger heads aids our survival. Well, they house larger brains, but that only begs the question of why bigger brains help us survive?

Here’s the crazy thing: larger brains help us survive by making us better, more successful liars, cheaters, and cuckolders.

More on this to-morrow...