or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Social Status, clothing, success, and more SEX and partners. Your thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Social Status, clothing, success, and more SEX and partners. Your thoughts?

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
"It's part of the male identity," says University of Connecticut psychologist James O'Neil. "We strive for success and upward mobility." But those who achieve high status still enjoy more sex with more partners than the rest of us, and the reason is no mystery. Researchers have gathered voluminous data on women's mating preferences over the past half century. They have studied primitive societies, conducted international surveys, run lab experiments"”even analyzed personals ads"”and they have consistently found that women favor signs of "earning capacity" over good looks. For sheer sex appeal, a doughy bald guy in a blue blazer and a Rolex will outscore a stud in a Burger King uniform almost every time. Power, it seems, really is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
post #2 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soph
“It’s part of the male identity,” says University of Connecticut psychologist James O’Neil. “We strive for success and upward mobility.” But those who achieve high status still enjoy more sex with more partners than the rest of us, and the reason is no mystery. Researchers have gathered voluminous data on women’s mating preferences over the past half century. They have studied primitive societies, conducted international surveys, run lab experiments—even analyzed personals ads—and they have consistently found that women favor signs of “earning capacity” over good looks. For sheer sex appeal, a doughy bald guy in a blue blazer and a Rolex will outscore a stud in a Burger King uniform almost every time. Power, it seems, really is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Depends what kind of partner you (and she) are looking for. These things are more complex than simple two sentence analyses allow.
post #3 of 51
Any woman who will sleep with Bill Gates instead of Patrick Bateman certainly has her priorities wrong. I don't understand this. I can understand why money would be appealing, but once you pass a certain threshold (say USD250,000 a year), I don't think it is as important anymore. I'm in a career where I can see myself being pretty happy in 4 or 5 years time in terms of income. What I really want in my life is to look better, to increase my fitness level, to be healthier, to be good at some sports, to have really great friends, and to have the time to travel around the world. Years pass by and I think one would regret focusing time and energy on making money.
post #4 of 51
To some degree it's about immediate gratification. While there is clearly dissention over which is preferable, enjoying one's immediate life to the detriment of a potential future financial windfall, or slaving away in the pursuit of the almighty dollar, I think few people would not choose to be immediately independently wealthy with no strings attached.
post #5 of 51


"... chicks dig a dude with money."
post #6 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATM


"... chicks dig a dude with money."
post #7 of 51
"mating preferences" lol
post #8 of 51
Thread Starter 
Why We Strive for Status
Science is revealing the biological roots of men's persistent one-upmanship




By Geoffrey Cowley
Newsweek
June 16 issue - Genghis Khan was not one to agonize over gender roles. He was into sex and power, and he didn't mind saying so. "The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him," the emperor once thundered, "to ride their horses and take away their possessions!"

Genghis Khan conquered two thirds of the known world during the early 13th century, amassing an empire that stretched from Eastern Europe to Korea. And he may have set an all-time record for what biologists call reproductive success. An account written 33 years after his death credited him with 20,000 descendants. Today researchers believe that 8 percent of the people living in the former empire may bear the leader's genes.

Men's manners have improved markedly since Genghis Khan's day. Harems went out of style centuries ago, and even despots now disavow pillage and oppression as ideals. At heart, though, we're the same animals we were 800 years ago. Which is to say we are status seekers. We may talk of equality and fraternity. We may strive for classless societies. But we go right on building hierarchies, and jockeying for status within them. Can we abandon the tendency? Probably not. For as scientists are now discovering, status seeking is not just a habit or a cultural tradition. It's a design feature of the male psyche"”a biological drive that is rooted in the nervous system and regulated by hormones and brain chemicals. The drive for dominance skews our perceptions, colors our friendships, shapes our moods and affects our health. But we're not always worse off for it. Hierarchies can produce harmony as well as strife and injustice. And even if we can't level them, there is no question we can make them more benign.

Males are not the only ones who crave status (remember Tonya Harding?), but we pursue it more doggedly than females at every stage of life. Studies suggest that boys are more assertive than girls at 13 months, more aggressive as toddlers and more competitive at almost any age. While schoolgirls engage in cooperative play, boys as young as 6 establish dominance hierarchies and maintain them through rough-and-tumble games. As adolescents, we boast, threaten and joust more than girls do. As adults, we're less bothered by social disparities, more supportive of military spending and less likely to share intimate feelings with friends of the same sex. "Men's relationships are more like alliances," Durham University psychologist Anne Campbell observes in her recent book "A Mind of Her Own." "They support one another and share their interests and activities, but always with wariness."

How do we know this relentless one-upmanship is a biological endowment? If the tendency showed up only in certain societies, it would be easier to dismiss as something we learn. But anthropologists find the same pattern virtually everywhere they look"”and so do zoologists. Male competition is fierce among crickets, crayfish and elephants, and it's ubiquitous among higher primates. "Male chimpanzees have an extraordinarily strong drive for dominance," says Frans de Waal, a behavioral scientist at Emory University and the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. "They're constantly jockeying for position." Like human males, chimps will bluff, scheme and sometimes murder to maintain or usurp rank. And, like human males, they respond physically as well as emotionally to advances and setbacks. When men prepare for a fight, or even a chess match, their bodies produce a surge of testosterone, a hormone known for boosting body mass and aggressiveness. "The testosterone level peaks during the contest," says Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham. "Afterward it stays high in the winner but declines in the loser." In other words, our glands are set to push us into winnable conflicts and to discourage foolish ambitions. Coincidence?

Evolutionists don't think so. From their perspective, life is essentially a race to reproduce, and natural selection is bound to favor different strategies in different organisms. Why should males be more primed than females to jockey for dominant status? In reproductive terms, they have vastly more to gain from it. A female can't flood the gene pool by commandeering extra mates; no matter how much sperm she attracts, she is unlikely to produce more than a dozen viable offspring. But as Genghis Khan's exploits make clear, males can profit enormously by out mating their peers. "If 10 percent of men can have a monopoly on 50 percent of the female population," Campbell observes, "other men are faced with the possibility of going to their graves childless unless they fight for their share of the reproductive opportunity." It's not hard to see how that dynamic, played out over millions of years, would leave modern men fretting over status. We're built from the genes that the most determined competitors passed down.

Fortunately, we don't aspire to families of 800. As monogamy and contraceptives may have leveled the reproductive playfield, power has become its own psychological reward. "It's part of the male identity," says University of Connecticut psychologist James O'Neil. "We strive for success and upward mobility." But those who achieve high status still enjoy more sex with more partners than the rest of us, and the reason is no mystery. Researchers have gathered voluminous data on women's mating preferences over the past half century. They have studied primitive societies, conducted international surveys, run lab experiments"”even analyzed personals ads"”and they have consistently found that women favor signs of "earning capacity" over good looks. For sheer sex appeal, a doughy bald guy in a blue blazer and a Rolex will outscore a stud in a Burger King uniform almost every time. Power, it seems, really is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

By the same token, powerlessness can be toxic. Scores of studies have linked male depression to problems with success, power and competition. A sudden loss of employment can be especially devastating, says University of Texas psychologist David Buss, costing men their marriages as well as their self-esteem. The stress of subordination may even cause physical illness. "Low socioeconomic status carries with it an enormously increased risk of a broad range of diseases," says Stanford biologist Robert Sapolsky, "and this gradient cannot be fully explained by factors such as health-care access." Animal studies suggest that low status can raise blood pressure, suppress the immune system and damage the heart. The effects on human health are less clear, but Sapolsky predicts that scientists will uncover the same connections.

Is there any hope for peace, justice or widespread happiness in a world so ineluctably stratified? The prospects aren't nearly as grim as all these findings suggest. Men may be obsessed with rank, but we're not always in conflict over it. In fact, once we work out who's higher and lower, we often relax and get along quite well. "If resources are divvied up unevenly," says Sapolsky, "you can fight it out tooth and claw for everything, or you can have a stable dominance system that gets you the same result without having to go through the battle every time. It's a conservative way of avoiding fighting." True, life at the bottom of the heap can be awful, but the top is not the only place to find fulfillment. "People often think that social rank is about everybody trying to get high rank," says University of Derby psychologist Paul Gilbert. "There's an important difference between pursuing high rank and avoiding low rank." Middle management can be a good deal if the boss is not a tyrant. And even if you land at the bottom of one hierarchy, it's often possible to distinguish yourself in another one. Janitor by day, martial-arts master by night.

That's not to say things always work out for the best. The world is full of would-be despots, and "take more than your share" is still the alpha-male motto. Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner notes that America's top CEOs now average $37.5 million in annual earnings"”more than 1,000 times the salary of an average worker. Genghis Khan would approve. The good news is that status doesn't survive by power alone. Even among nonhuman primates, the most durable leaders are those who kiss babies, flatter allies and share their bounty"”in short, the ones who govern by consent. They may have testosterone to spare, but it is matched and balanced by serotonin, a neurotransmitter critical for controlling impulses. And though quick to confront potential challengers, they employ more bluff than force. "If you have to abuse your power," says Sapolsky, "you're probably in the process of losing it." Men will surely continue to learn that lesson the hard way. But we've come a fair distance already, and the millennium is young.
post #9 of 51
Enormous cut and paste jobs are no good. It's best to edit as much as possible and still get your point across.
post #10 of 51
All serious fields have now rejected social darwinism as an even remotely valid theory, maybe management and relationship writers should get a clue if they want to stop being the laughingstock of everyone else...
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloaney
Any woman who will sleep with Bill Gates instead of Patrick Bateman certainly has her priorities wrong.

Are you kidding? Bill is supposedly really intelligent, confident, and articulate, even if he looks like a dork. Patrick Bateman is a fictional character who was written as a caricature. He is insecure, paranoid, and homicidal. You think a woman who would choose Patrick Bateman, no matter his looks, over Bill Gates really has her head screwed on right?
post #12 of 51
Alpha males don't posture. Beta males vying for position do. Just an observation. Carry on.
post #13 of 51
god, talk about researching the obvious.

money, power and status always do more for a man's sex life, in terms of attracting quality women, than looks.

is there any man -- or woman -- on the planet who doesn't know this?

sure, there are exceptions here and there, but as a general rule, this is how life works. does anyone think donald trump gets all that hot pussy because of his great looks and charming personality?
post #14 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy
Alpha males don't posture. Beta males vying for position do. Just an observation. Carry on.

Indeed.
post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soph


Trump's an amateur compared with Briatore:
(Klum, Campbell, Herzigova, Kidman, etc. etc. etc.)







New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Social Status, clothing, success, and more SEX and partners. Your thoughts?