0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I’m not an expert in the phenomena, but here are some relevant considerations. From an evolutionary perspective, female mate choice should be affected both by a desire for good genes (where “good” means “likely to reproduce”) as well as paternal investment in the woman’s children. These need not coincide; hence some women have affairs with the strongest, smartest, best-looking man available, while being married to the nicest and most reliable man available. There is some evidence that women are more attracted to hypermasculine men when they are ovulating (when good genes are paramount) and to nice guys when they are not. There is also evidence that less desirable women are less choosy in terms of the willingness and ability of a man to provide for her and her children, and hence at least in relative terms more attracted to dashing qualities than to stable ones. Note too that the most desirable man of all, in many woman’s eyes, is “tough-tender” – nice to her, aggressive with everyone else.Toughness can be attractive for several reasons. One is that it can reflect overall genetic quality – health, smarts, strength (this would be especially true in ancestral contexts where the land and money and power went to the best warriror, not to the smartest lawyer). Another is that it can protect the woman and her children against rapists, abductors, and so on. Probably most relevant is that he promises to give her tough sons. A woman’s son has to compete against other women’s sons, and if he is beaten up or publicly humiliated or cuckolded or killed, he will have less of a chance to reproduce. Of course all these have to be traded off against how good he is to her and her kids, but as mentioned, I predict that most women would prefer tough-to-others-nice-to-her than tough-to-everyone, though some may have to settle for the latter as a second choice.
