by Jesse James
War offers some pretty tempting rewards for the aspiring killer. Throughout history, the spoils of war included raping women in the conquered territory, looting villages, and coming home to a hero’s welcome. Returning triumphantly from World War II, veterans who left for Normandy just a few years before – penniless and desperate - found themselves showered with attention from an adoring public. Ladies love heroes. WWII veterans enjoyed successful careers in politics, business and finance, rising from the depths of poverty to social superstardom, a transformation forged in the cauldron of war.
Patriots might charge me with cynicism. People die for their country, not their genetic fitness, claim some critics of evolutionary biology. Yet it’s hard to explain a famous case of bomber pilots during the pacific phase of World War II making a seemingly mathematically illogical decision. At one particularly dangerous bomber base, a pilot had only a 25% chance of surviving his quota of missions. Some math whiz at the base figured out that if fliers executed half as many flights with twice as many bombs, they could improve their chances of survival to one-in-two. That’s twice as a good as one in four. The only problem with this proposal was that they would have to carry half as much fuel to make room for the extra bombs, meaning each mission would actually be a flight of no return, as there would not be enough fuel for a return trip. The pilots would have to draw straws for the suicide missions. No one volunteered for this morbid lottery, despite the mathematical certainty that the survival rate at the base would jump by 50%. A 25% chance of life looks a lot better than a 100% chance of death, even if the overall chances for survival improve. My point is that these pilots should have been willing to accept the potential for ‘shortest straw’ if they were really willing to sacrifice for their country, but not if they joined the war to achieve wealth and status. Only the living, after all, enjoy the spoils of war.34
March off to battle and you might get hurt. If you’re lucky, you might even get a scar. One recent study found that chicks dig scars. Researchers asked 147 females to rate the attractiveness of scarred vs. unscarred male faces. Women found the scarred faces more sexually appealing in a short-term partner than the unscarred faces. The title of the article says it all: ‘Facial scarring enhances men’s attractiveness for short-term relationships.‘35
Women exhibited no such preference for scars in candidates for long-term relationships. Scars advertise bravery and boldness, hot personality traits for a casual fling but not for a husband. Preferring scars in short-term partners makes good evolutionary sense. What woman wants her husband to go off to war, possibly never to return? After getting knocked up with those bold genes, she’s happy if her hero-for-a-night returns to the trenches, leaving her unmarried wimp of a husband to support the unknown soldier’s child. If a woman can have her cake, she will eat it too.
Boxing is a dangerous sport where grown men beat the bejesus out of each other. Boxers get knocked out, scarred, and occasionally lose body parts like Evander Holyfield. After several dozen hard-fought matches, a boxer’s face may look a little less cherubic than when he first began his career. Despite the often-stated female aversion to violence, they seem to enjoy men who participate in such savagery. Mike Tyson’s cannibalism and ugly mug hardly hurt his reproductive chances. He fathered eight children, six more than the national average, despite his missing teeth, face tattoo, crooked nose and prominent scars.
Mohammed Ali was busy outside of the ring, too. In between bouts he managed to sire nine children. Nine was also the magic number for Evander Holyfield, who might have more kids than brain cells after being tossed around the ring for years before Tyson chewed off his ear.
Taking up boxing would be a painful way to increase your attractiveness to women. Rock climbing is a lot more fun. Professor Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire asked 6,000 people which sports they thought would make a member of the opposite sex more attractive. Rock climbing topped the list for women with 57%, edging out extreme sports, soccer, and hiking.
Women are attracted to male rock climbers more than male participants of any other sport, even basketball, football, and hockey. ‘Women’s choices appear to reflect the type of psychological qualities that they find attractive – such as bravery and a willingness to take on challenges – whilst men are more shallow, looking for a woman who is physically fit but not challenging their ego by being overly strong.’36
And the least sexy sport for men? Don’t take up golf or aerobics if you want to impress the ladies. As for aerobics, well, men in tights only looked good in the 1980s. Golf is the dullest sport in the world, about as exciting as a jar of peanut butter left to rot in the sun. And what golfer rips off his shirt to flaunt his bulging muscles before making a delicate putt?
Women love bravery and abhor cowardice. A man who takes no risks will have offspring who takes no risks in pursuit of reproduction. Small wonder women like ‘bad boys,’ even if they happen to be jerks.
Taking up extreme sports, rock climbing, and even hiking can boost your appeal with the opposite sex. These outdoor activities also offer a fantastic way to meet good-looking women. Try meetup.com, where you can usually join a local group specializing in the sport of your choice. It’s quick, easy, and free to join.
The Practical Peacock
So what is the upshot of all this talk of wasting time and money? How will Zahavi’s Theory of Honest Signalling and Thorstein Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption help you exercise your biological imperative? I mean get laid.
Of course, it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that women are attracted to fancy cars, huge mansions and million-dollar yachts. Rock stars score pretty well with the ladies too. But most of us cannot afford to buy a Bentley and very few of us play guitar like Jimi Hendrix. So how will handicap theory help you seduce women?
Seduction in a social group setting, such as a nightclub or bar, requires fundamental understanding of human peacocking. Your strategy is to rapidly and clearly communicate your high fitness to the females in the room. The herd of dull men beneath you will fade into obscurity as you rise above them; you will be their thundercloud. The bulging Neanderthal at the bar stands no chance against your superior, scientifically-grounded game.
One of the simplest, yet most effective tactics is to buy a round of drinks for everyone at the bar or club, assuming the scene is small enough and assuming – this is very important, folks – that everyone knows that drinks are on you. This tactic obviously won’t work in a packed Hollywood Strip nightclub, but in many smaller scenes such generosity fares well.
One day in 1994 I was attending my best friend’s birthday party at a local pub. Now I personally do not imbibe, coming from a religious family, but the thirty or so men and women in attendance were less principled. So I bought a round of drinks for all, and a few hours later I bought another. My generosity earned the goodwill of everyone, including the barmaid, with whom I shared a very enjoyable bed that night.
Dinner with a group of friends offers another opportunity for conspicuous waste. Pick up the tab if you want to impress the pretty girl sitting across from you. Just do it. A simple advertisement of your wealth clearly communicates your high status and generosity.
Good looking people instinctually avoid paying the bill. Goods looks, apparently, substitute for status at the dinner table. In a recent study, Dr. Michael Stirrat noted that ‘You would expect people to have a knowledge about how good-looking they were and so the more attractive people in that context are just going to get more interest so they need to make less effort in that situation either to meet people, or get a chance to impress people, so it does make sense that more attractive people would be less willing to pay.’37 Unless you look like Brad Pitt, however, I recommend you pick up the dinner tab whenever possible. Word will spread of your generosity – and apparent financial good fortune – enhancing your status within your social circle. When it comes time to pay for dinner, bust out your credit card.
Another easy way to signal you
r high fitness is to dress impeccably well. In the classic analysis of human fashion, ‘On Human Finery,’ Quentin Bell exposes the underlying psychology of fashion. Men’s fashion is designed to raise the status of the wearer relative to his peers. Bell writes, ‘The man who worked was not infrequently in receipt of a larger income than the men who drew rents off him; an industrial life no longer implied a poor or laborious existence, and therefore ceased to be dishonorable. It was sufficient, therefore, that a man should demonstrate by means of his black coat, cylindrical hat, spotless linen, carefully rolled umbrella, and general air of refined discomfort that he was not actually engaged in the production of goods, but only in some more genteel employment concerned with management or distribution.’ In other words, the popularity of the grey business suit evolved as a way for high-status, wealthy males to set themselves apart from the average laborer.38
Scientific studies confirm that women find men dressed in expensive suits sexier than men dressed casually. A recent study found that ‘nearly three-quarters (78 percent) of women assert one of the hottest things a guy can do is to dress well.’39 Another researcher discovered that women shown pictures of different men were more sexually attracted to males who wear expensive clothing, such as three-piece suits, sports jackets, and designer jeans, compared to men who wore cheap clothing like tank tops and t-shirts. The moral of this story? Dress like a million bucks by night, even if you flip burgers by day.
Personally, I find the grey drabness of a Brooks Brothers suit reminiscent of a cold and cloudy London afternoon; there is nothing sexy about such attire other than the status it confers. Incredibly, women consider good fashion sense even sexier than cold hard cash. ‘A vast majority (85 percent) of women think a guy who dresses well is sexier than one who has a lot of money.’40 High fashion dress not only wins the hearts and minds of beautiful women, but also increases respect among one’s male peers, resulting in higher wages, faster promotions, and better jobs. It is no coincidence that Bill Clinton looks like he popped out of the womb in a $3,000 suit.
Improving your style of dress should be your first priority. Visit Harry Rosen or Holt Renfrew and invest as much money as you can afford in a high-class wardrobe with an emphasis on designer brands like Armani. Bring a fashion-conscious female to help you shop.
Like expensive clothes, displaying valuable jewelry, such as a Rolex watch or gold bracelet, increases your sex appeal by nonverbally communicating your status to the opposite sex. Wearing an expensive ring will get you noticed in all the right ways. Often times I’ve walked into a bar or a club adorned in tasteful gold jewelry, a freshly-pressed Armani suit and a Rolex watch (fake, but who can tell?). Such attire immediately draws attention from ladies in the club; soon women are competing for the chance to take me home.
Conspicuous consumption apparently only works for men seeking casual sex, as such profligate waste is less attractive in a long-term mate. Women want a husband who is stable and fiscally sensible. According to a recent series of experiments conducted by Daniel Beal and Jill Sundie at the University of Texas, ‘ …conspicuous purchasing enhanced men’s desirability as a short-term (but not as a long-term) mate. Overall, these findings suggest that flaunting status-linked goods to potential mates is not simply about displaying economic resources. Instead, conspicuous consumption appears to be part of a more precise signaling system focused on short-term mating.’41
So what have we learned from Amotz Zahavi, Thorstein Veblen and Quentin Bell? If you’re looking for casual sex, conspicuous displays of wealth and status are your ticket to the promised land. Order up a round of drinks for everyone. Dress to the nines. Display generosity. Pick up the dinner tab. Wear expensive jewelry or expensive-looking fakes. Get in touch with your inner Van Gogh.
Chapter 3
Deep Inside the Female Mind
‘The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul is: “What does a woman want?”’
- Sigmund Freud
Ahh, Sigmund. I feel your pain.
If I had a dollar for every time some average frustrated chump asked me ‘Professor, what do women really want?’ I would be richer than Bill Gates (or at least Bill Murray).
Every woman is a little different. Some women want to be school teachers, while others set their sights on the Presidency. Some women want to work in a beauty salon, others prefer to fight on the front lines of Afghanistan. Some women strive to be artists, others dream of driving race cars. I’ve never heard of any girl aspiring to become an auto mechanic, but I’m pretty sure that greasy wrench-turning females are more common than unicorns. But what every woman wants – from Colombian campesinas to high fashion Parisian models – is a husband and a lover. I mean both. Let’s talk about why.
Females want a committed husband to provide for them and their children long-term, but such a husband – by the cold laws of statistics – is probably not the best possible source of genes. Enter John Nash and game theory. It pays evolutionary benefits for a woman to accept a less-than-perfect husband while continuing to seek the ideal genes for her children. If she can score those genes from her husband’s beefy bodyguard, then so much the better.
There is often a monstrous disconnect between what a woman claims she wants and what she actually wants. Many women say they want to find a 'nice guy' but always up dating an abusive jerk. When it comes to love and sexual desire, both men and women are bundles of confusion and self-deception.
One of the most influential evolutionary biologists since Charles Darwin, Robert Trivers argued that in order to deceive others, an animal must first deceive itself. He explains that ‘self-deception’s hallmark is a biased system of transfer from the conscious to the unconscious mind. Deception is therefore the reason for the invention of the subconscious.’42 When a woman explains her mating preferences in a dating ad or in a conversation with her girlfriends, she is simply stating her conscious desires, heavily influenced by cultural pressures. Rare indeed is the lady who confesses; ‘I want to find a provider husband and cuckold him, forcing him to raise another man’s bastard child.’ And yet that is precisely the algorithm whirring away in the female subconscious.
Forget everything you think you know about women. Most of what you’ve learned about women comes from what women have told you - your mother, your sister, your first girlfriend, your last girlfriend. The problem is that women know even less about themselves than you know about them. Feminists, don’t lynch me! The same is true for men.
CLINIC: Casual Versus Long-Term Lovers
Many researchers attempt to find out what women find attractive in men by running clever experiments on college campuses around the world. After perusing dozens of such studies, I realized that psychologists sometimes make a serious mistake, failing to differentiate between female preferences for long-term or short-term mating.
Articles in Men’s Health and Psychology Today often trumpet ‘female sexual preferences’ without clarifying the traits a woman finds attractive for a casual partner versus a husband.
Women value certain physical and personality traits, such as height and intelligence, for both short-term and long-term partners, but the weight given to most characteristics varies wildly depending on the circumstance. A married woman seeking a casual affair, for example, puts much less emphasis on a man’s financial resources than his genetic makeup. Physical features indicating good genes such as V-shaped torso, height, symmetry and muscularity trump status, wealth and fame in this situation. In contrast, a woman seeking a husband will rarely focus on his physical build. In a long-term mate, women seek signs of parental investment, positive personality traits, and, of course, the financial resources to support a future family. She can get good genes elsewhere, like Madam Bovary.
In general, women pursuing casual sex with a short-term lover will emphasize physical traits more than socioeconomic status, and they will tend to prefer Dark Triad personali
ty traits. Women pursuing a ‘domestic bliss’ strategy to obtain a long-term mate or husband will favor positive personality traits and high socioeconomic status, with appearance ranking much lower on the attraction scale.
A woman’s ovulation cycle also strongly influences her preferences in a male. Women tend to prefer more masculine, more aggressive and more dominant males during the fertile phase of their cycle. Perhaps not coincidentally, this is also the phase when they are most likely to cheat on their husbands, hunting for those elusive ‘good genes.’
Now that you understand what women want for short-term versus long-term mating, you can tailor your own personality, lifestyle and physical characteristics to meet that demand.
Pleistocene Polly and Neanderthal Nick
Human behavior did not arise in a vacuum. I no longer believe in God, but even if I did, it would be hard to accept that the Creator plopped Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden with the command; ‘Man will like fast cars and action movies. Woman will like soap operas and romance novels. Now go forth and prosper.’
Millions of years of evolution made us who we are today. Rewind to the Pleistocene era. Known as the ‘environment of evolutionary adaptedness’ (EEA), this was the period when we lived in small nomadic tribes hunting dangerous animals on the African savannah. Our modern behaviors became hard-wired into our brains by the challenges we faced over hundreds of thousands of years. The hardships endured on the African savannah by our mythical forebears Pleistocene Polly and Neanderthal Nick differ from those confronting modern city dwellers, but our hard-wired behavioral patterns have not changed. Two thousand years of city life is nowhere near enough time for evolution to reprogram human nature with adaptations more suited to skyscrapers and subway stations than open savannahs. Evolution is a slow, dumb process.