- if the woman is already attractive, then the higher status will make her even more attractive => beauty & mind (or trophy)
- if the woman is not so attractive, then the higher status will make her even LESS attractive => men don't like moderately attractive woman when they're smart (but it's ok if they're not so smart)
Is it really what the article says?
Conversaly, the higher the status of a women, the more her attractiveness is important for men: they can accept that a low status is more or less desirable, but a high status woman MUST be highly attractive too if she wants to get a man.
Simplistic explanation proposal: high status is still a man thing. They can accept that a "perfect" woman has it (they can't fight), but a moderatly attractive woman will be considered more like a lucky rival, so less attractive.
Just an idea... if I understand correctly the article summary
Doesn't beauty mean visual signs of health, longevity, and likelihood for the same in offspring?
From that perspective, the headline reads "Signs of health and longevity determine whether men romantically desire or dismiss high status women", which sounds like a common mating strategy throughout the animal kingdom.
>From that perspective, the headline reads "Signs of health and longevity determine whether men romantically desire or dismiss high status women", which sounds like a common mating strategy throughout the animal kingdom.
No, read the abstract.
>As predicted, a meta-analysis across all three experiments revealed that higher (vs. lower) status decreased men's attraction to moderately-attractive women (d = -0.20), whereas higher (vs. lower) status increased men's attraction to highly-attractive women (d = 0.47).
"Men like beautiful women because they want healthy offsprings" doesn't explain why the response is different depending on status.
No the study is saying for moderately attractive women, the higher the status, the less attractive they become for men. "experiments revealed that higher (vs. lower) status decreased men's attraction to moderately-attractive women (d = -0.20)"
But for highly attractive women, the higher the status, the more attractive they become for men. "whereas higher (vs. lower) status increased men's attraction to highly-attractive women (d = 0.47)."
In other words, if you are a highly attractive women, you increase your desirability by increasing your status. If you are "moderately attractive women", you decrease your desirability by increasing your status.
Lolwhut. “High status” women tend to scare away all the men. Strong, successful (and lonely) is the cliché for a reason because most men are too insecure and don’t want competition in bacon-bringing and rationality. I think it’s cool because in an ideal mate you want someone who can make solid decision under pressure when your life hangs in the balance. That’s the most important factor besides whether you get along and both wants kids or not. PSA: Be smart.. don’t hitch to someone because of short-term lust that fades, hitch because you’re better together than apart for the long-haul, and only with a prenup.
Title only mentions "high status" but they refer to "high status jobs". I only read the abstract so idk if this is mentioned in the study. But I'm gonna propose a big confounder: Hours.
Men prefer physical beauty the most. Status is less important. When status is important Men prefer women who are in lower ranking jobs.
Nothing really new here aside from Women showed no differences which would be different from my experience (women prefer high status vs low status jobs in their partner)
When status is important Men prefer women who are in lower ranking jobs.
This directly contradicts the findings of the paper. In the study, they found that, in the eyes of men, high status jobs increase the attractiveness of highly attractive women.
Women have the power to say no as they please - they do not have to date anyone. Men on the other hand rarely refuse a potential partner. That is a major difference.
The one who approaches and has initiative has control over the size of their pool. If you sit around and wait for potential partners to approach you, it's quite a bit more random and variable.
Of course women don’t “have” to date anyone. Nobody HAS to date anyone. And women should have the power to say no at will. So should men. Guess what? They do!
This is some “mediocre boy doesn’t get the super hot girl so there’s some conspiracy against all men by women” BS.
Not sure I understand your point. Several studies have already shown that men do not tend to refuse multiple partners (probably because they have nothing to lose as long as marriage/commitment is not involved). Women, however, as a general rule, do not act this way. Of course you can say men have the same power but they just do not exercise it.
> True. Marriage will not be freely given, though.
Yes. They have the power to say no but the things they say no to are different, as is the reason for saying no. In general, men and women want different things out of each other.
Widely unequal for men. If you are amongst the most attractive males then you will get a lot more choice but the lower half will basically have a much smaller pool of partners (the good old 80/20 rule is at play here), unless they have significant differentiator such as wealth.
- if the woman is already attractive, then the higher status will make her even more attractive => beauty & mind (or trophy)
- if the woman is not so attractive, then the higher status will make her even LESS attractive => men don't like moderately attractive woman when they're smart (but it's ok if they're not so smart)
Is it really what the article says?
Conversaly, the higher the status of a women, the more her attractiveness is important for men: they can accept that a low status is more or less desirable, but a high status woman MUST be highly attractive too if she wants to get a man.
Simplistic explanation proposal: high status is still a man thing. They can accept that a "perfect" woman has it (they can't fight), but a moderatly attractive woman will be considered more like a lucky rival, so less attractive.
Just an idea... if I understand correctly the article summary