A study found that men’s real-world sexual success was highly correlated with how intimidating other men found them, not by how attractive women rated them. This suggests female mate choice is less about direct selection and more about passively choosing the victors of intra-male competition, validating a 'male competition theory' of attraction.
Related Insights
For hyper-successful women at the apex of their fields, the optimal mating strategy is to choose a partner from a completely different 'status game' (e.g., an entertainer marrying an athlete). This avoids direct professional comparison and competition, allowing for a relationship based on complementary, non-overlapping forms of prestige and competence.
The concept of a vast 'mating marketplace' driven by immediate value signals is a recent phenomenon. Evolutionarily, humans formed bonds based on long-term compatibility within small, familiar tribes, suggesting that today's dating apps create an unnatural and potentially detrimental dynamic.
Women often focus on pleasing men by catering to preferences, a behavior rooted in survival instincts. However, men place far greater value on being admired, accepted, and empowered. They consider 'being pleased' a low-priority concern that comes after all major goals are accomplished.
Fame or renown, even on a small scale, is a more powerful tool for attraction than wealth. Being the 'contextual alpha'—the center of attention in a specific environment like an actor on stage or a musician at an open mic—creates a powerful status hierarchy that is highly attractive, regardless of one's financial standing.
The period where men cold-approached strangers who became their partners was a brief historical anomaly, not a long-standing norm. It required a high-trust society still operating on the 'fumes' of previous conservative behavioral norms. Both before and after this short window, mate selection has primarily been mediated through trusted social networks.
Men often leverage their financial success as a primary tool of attraction in dating. In contrast, successful women frequently downplay their wealth due to a conditioned fear of being pursued for their money rather than their character—a concern their male counterparts rarely share.
Women value traits like kindness, safety, and love, but these qualities are desired in partners they are already attracted to. Men often mistakenly believe that simply being nicer will create attraction, when in fact attraction must be established first through other means. The positive traits are a requirement for a relationship, not a catalyst for initial desire.
Men aren't looking for a partner who mirrors their own strengths. Instead, they search for someone with complementary skills and attributes that alter and enhance their own potential, much like a star quarterback seeks a star receiver. Criticizing a man for not having her strengths is deeply counterproductive.
Human societies are not innately egalitarian; they are innately hierarchical. Egalitarianism emerged as a social technology in hunter-gatherer groups, using tools like gossip and ostracism to collectively suppress dominant 'alpha' individuals who threatened group cohesion.
Men distinguish between sexual attraction (which inspires 'taking') and charm (which inspires 'giving'). The most charming qualities in a woman are self-confidence, authenticity, passion, and crucially, receptivity—the ability to receive a man’s contributions, which creates a powerful desire for him to provide and protect.