You can be thoughtful and accommodating without being a doormat which is what you appear to be alluding to.
Breaking this down to an evolutionary biology standpoint, what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman? It has the opposite effect on the intended outcomes, that of security and stability from which to raise offspring.
The whole treat em mean, keep them keen mentality might work in the short term and get you laid but a happy productive relationship it will not build. Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.
...what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman?
It leads her to believe your genetic material is of a higher quality than she could normally gain access to.
Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.
Sometimes. But that's a better outcome than if she stays with you and goes elsewhere for higher quality genetic material, which is far more common than most people believe.
I recommend The Red Queen if you want to start learning about this. The short answer: men largely choose mates based on looks; women choose based more on social status. Signalling low social status reduces male attractiveness; signalling high social status raises it.
n = 1, but this has worked for me. Deliberately act like you can take it or leave it, and you're unlikely to be left. (And note that women initiate the majority of breakups and divorces, so you're not risking much if you risk a breakup.)
I love pop psychology books that tell me it is fine to be lazy and uncaring. /sarcasm
We aren't talking about dating here, we are talking about long term relationships. The whole Red Queen thing breaks down when we add artificial human constructs such as marriage and monogamy.
We are not a Silver Back leading a band of gorillas, we are far more complex than that. Sure, signalling plays a roll in initial conditions, impressions and attractiveness. However once we get past the monkey brain and into the far more complex social behaviors humans have developed there aren't just a couple of sliders to adjust to determine how successful a relationship is.
I would love to hear of anyone having a successful and above all healthy long term relationship using the ideas you espouse.
Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting that once one has consciously elected to enter into a long-term relationship, one's biological drives and genetic predispositions immediately shut down?
Genetic expression and disposition toward gene-propagating behaviors do not cease to operate, no matter how far removed we think we are from the "lowly" Silverback.
Your other points regarding human social behaviors are being quite a bit more complex than that of gorillas is correct, but I don't think recognition of that fact is sufficient basis for assuming that all other factors are suddenly irrelevant.
Not at all, I am contending that there are far more complex social dynamics going on beyond the simplistic ape view that others are espousing. The fact we evolved from apes so our social brains are rooted in that make up is significant, however others seem to be treating it as significant to the exclusion of all else.
My original response to the whole "treat em mean, keep em keen" comment in fact makes a reverse argument using evolutionary biology. That is that this sort of behavior actually precludes building a successful relationship as the woman doesn't get the security she needs to raise her offspring.
So let's turn it back to Hacker News for a moment.
You're slaving away in a startup, working insane hours and getting paid way less than what you're worth. There's equity in there somewhere. Maybe. You've finished up another 12 hour day and there's the wife glaring at you at the kitchen table: "When is this job going to get us somewhere? Why can't we be doing/having <x> like your friend Bob who works at <consulting firm y>?"
The social status thing makes sense. And you're working your ass off to try to make that next step up, or cash out, or whatever.
Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of espousing an unpopular opinion amongst people who tend to irrationally believe magical romantic things about evolved bags of meat.
It's a fairly well established biological fact( caveat - there are of course exceptions )that female primates, including humans, respond sexually favorably toward high status behavior on the part of males.
The Red Queen is a good book, but there are countless others. Sperm Wars, Sex At Dawn, The Evolution of Desire, and myriad academic papers that these books reference, paint a very clear picture of female sexuality that few will ever want to believe.
n=1 is irrelevant in this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the actual scientific evidence is quite clear on this matter.
Edit: removed reference to emo hipsters. Not constructive.
Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of falling for cynical pop-science just so stories. This evolutionary psychology and biology stuff applied to humans is still pretty new and pretty far from "well established biological fact", and it comes with all the caveats of human behavioral research plus the added trappings of being a scientific fad.
In particular, there is plenty of room in evo-psych for pair bonding and long term relationships. Historically and across diverse cultures these relationships have generally been the dominant method of producing children, so I'd say it's a pretty OK evolutionary strategy. The 'scientific' evidence is all around you, evolved bag of meat.
And in long term relationships, effort is not optional.
Note that for many of us human males, it takes a huge effort to avoid seeming needy, predict our significant other's desires, and act to fulfill those desires in a dominant and take-charge kind of way. It's quite a bit harder than making an effort and showing it.
Men who have gone through a divorce actually have more children nowadays (when you add up all kids from all relationships). So in evolutionary terms the long term relationship is less successful.
The problem though is that not all women think like this. And if you actual are humble and not "manly" you may have actually bagged a woman who values that. Likewise, if you're an overweight woman, the man your with may actual like you being overweight. Losing 50 pounds could make you LESS attractive.
There's a big difference between optimizing behavior when you're single and trying to score as much as possible vs being in a relationship and trying to optimize your relations with that one particular person. You're no longer dealing with a population.
> Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of espousing an unpopular opinion amongst the emo hipsters of HN.
No offence, but if you actually had the facts on your side you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to insulting everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Emo hipsters, really?
You overlook the fact that making effort (and most importantly following through) gets you sex. Happy wife = happy life. It's not beneath you to try to make your partner happy. And if she responds the way you're implying - I'm sorry, something is probably wrong with her.
I hate this phrase, it's the battle cry of those who do whatever their wife says and laugh with their buddies about how whipped they are. Marriage is a balancing act. Of course you have to change and give in where appropriate but if you do everything she says she wants you will lower her opinion of you (as it should, since you're a coward).
Happy wife = happy life only works if your wife thinks "Happy husband = happy life". The premise of the phrase, for me, is that you're actually married to the right person.
But way to read too far into a silly little phrase and call me a coward, Mr. Anonymous Internet Man.
Looks like you're getting a bit defensive for some reason. I was using "you" as a generic pronoun (I could have said "one would be" instead but that's more wordy and is IMO less clear).
I think you're reading the parent wrong. They're not calling you a coward, they're classifying"[anyone who does] everything she says she wants" as cowards.
You overlook the fact that making effort (and most importantly following through) gets you sex
Not in my experience.
As for your "happy wife = happy life" theory, I'd strongly suggest running very fast away from women who implement this theory. You don't want people in your life who will drag you down to their level.
if she responds the way you're implying - I'm sorry, something is probably wrong with her.
In that case, something is probably wrong with most women.
As I responded above, happy wife = happy life has more to do with how you think about and treat your wife than being subservient to her. As long as you've found the right person that has your best interests in mind, I don't see how it's a bad thing to show her you love her by doing things for her.
It is known that in general, women respond most to emotional stimulation and men respond to sex. When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.
The entire premise of "happy wife = happy life" is that your wife is making you happy. This premise is false. A wife can marginally increase your happiness, or make you less unhappy, but happiness is fundamentally something you need to create for yourself.
However, many people fake the "happy me = happy you" by making you unhappy. That is often within their power to do. Then they give you respite when you do what they want. If you don't know better, you might mistake this for happiness. From what I've seen, this is how "happy wife = happy life" (or in it's more honest form, "if momma aint happy, nobody ain't happy") is usually implemented.
When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.
It might be a win-win for you, but many people dislike trading labor/money/etc for sex (even when the trade is implicit). Personally, I prefer sex which is freely given for the sole purpose of mutual pleasure.
Or you can live up to the challenge posed by American women. If you can manage that, Brazilian and Columbian women will also be interested, so you'll get to pick.
You can be thoughtful and accommodating without being a doormat which is what you appear to be alluding to.
Breaking this down to an evolutionary biology standpoint, what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman? It has the opposite effect on the intended outcomes, that of security and stability from which to raise offspring.
The whole treat em mean, keep them keen mentality might work in the short term and get you laid but a happy productive relationship it will not build. Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.