Dear Dr Milrod:
As a man I know myself fairly well. A gorgeous woman with a fair personality will get my attention more easily than a fair looking woman with a fantastic personality. I may eventually not continue with the gorgeous woman (after a lot of sex) but the fair looking woman is probably the better choice long term. Do women think this way? (I don’t think so). Is there some evolutionary explanation for this male vs. female difference (assuming I am correct)?

Caveman in pursuit

Dear Caveman in pursuit:
Actually, recent evolutionary theories put a much smaller difference on male-female human mating behavior than previously assumed. The key is the Short Term Mating Strategy that both males and females employ. You are describing it in terms of your own behavior – for immediate screwing, a more gorgeous female will do; for a long-term investment, i.e. care for the parental offspring, a less gorgeous but more ‘resourcefully adapted’ [read educated, brainy] female will be more fitting to your purposes.

In earlier evolutionary psychology, we assumed that women ignored gorgeous Brad Pittians and went more for homely Ross Perotians in every case possible. We assumed that the parental investment theory in terms of resources, protection and ability to provide for the offspring was always in force for women. An ugly rich man would always win over a poor gorgeous man [as Brad Pitt once was.] Now we know that it’s not true. Repeated studies have shown that when women ovulate, they are drawn to faces more like Brad’s than Ross’s. The reason: it is assumed that more masculine looking men will generate babies that are stronger, fitter and have more of a chance to survive. Later, in a woman’s luteal phase (when ovulation has taken place and she’s heading toward her menses,) we have observed that women select someone with more diffuse facial features and an absence of many morphologically hypermasculine traits. Such features have been associated with beta-males, less stridency and perhaps more nurturing. So Brad may lose out to e.g. Tom Hanks in the end, especially if a woman has missed her window for baby-making and is more focused on her own survival and that of the existent offspring. Less hunk, more cash. Of course, Brad Pitt is a bad example, since he’s got both…but picture Brad in his 20s, as in “Thelma and Louise.” Poor, gorgeous, with washboard abs. Tom never looked that good…but you know he wouldn’t stray either. He’d show up on the dot outside the cave with some dependable bounty. Means a lot to a strapped cave woman!

Now in Short Term Mating strategies, women will be less choosy in terms of parental investment, and more apt to pick whatever is advantageous to them in the immediate situation. They may pick the cave man who perhaps is older and toothless, someone who represents less genetic fitness but may be carrying a bauta piece of meat with him. This enables the female to distribute extra resources, either to her offspring or simply to herself. If she’s had trouble conceiving, she may indeed pick Brad Pitt, only because she thinks she’ll have a better chance at generating another clan member immediately. Short Term mating is undertaken for selfish purposes by both men and women.

In the end, I do believe men and women are more alike than different, however, women do put a much higher premium on offspring in the long term. And depending on the man’s own resources and genetic fitness, he may mix and match, only because he’s a ‘cave man player’ and can have many wives. Just observe someone like Donald Trump. His first wife [fair looking with fantastic personality, the Czech accent notwithstanding] produced the heir to his fortune. He spent just enough time with her to ensure that his offspring would be nurtured until they emptied the nest. When he was done with their mother, he married one gorgeous bimbo after another. And, since they were thinking long-term, they ignored the comb-over hairstyle and focused on his millions instead. But for Short Term mating, who’s to say that Marla and/or Melania aren’t screwing their hunky gardeners?

In Woody Allen’s words from the film “Husbands And Wives” (1992):
“The heart raged, grew melancholy and confused. And toward what end? To articulate what nitwit strategy? Procreation?
It told him something. How millions of sperm competed for a single egg, not the other way around. Men would make love with any number of women even total strangers, while females were selective. They were catering to the demands of one small egg, while males had millions of frantic sperms screaming “Let us out, let us out!”

Christine Milrod, PhD