What do you think?
Rate this book
When Men Behave Badly: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment, and Assault
“An exceptional book” (Helen Fisher) by a leading evolutionary psychologist and sex researcher that lays out a new theory of sexual conflict, exposing the roots of the dangerous dynamics that underpin men’s predatory behavior — and what can be done to address it.
Sexual conflict permeates ancient religions, from injunctions about thy neighbor's wife to the permissible rape of infidels. It is etched in written laws that dictate who can and cannot have sex with whom. Its manifestations shape our sexual morality, evoking approving accolades or contemptuous condemnation. It produces sexual double standards that flourish even in the most sexually egalitarian cultures on earth. And although every person alive struggles with sexual conflict, most of us see only the tip of the dating deception, a politician's unsavory sexual grab, the slow crumbling of a once-happy marriage, a romantic breakup that turns nasty.
When Men Behave Badly shows that this "battle of the sexes" is deeper and far more pervasive than anyone has recognized, revealing the hidden roots of sexual conflict—roots that originated over deep evolutionary time—which define the sexual psychology we currently carry around in our 3.5-pound brains. Providing novel insights into our minds and behaviors, When Men Behave Badly presents a unifying new theory of sexual conflict, and offers practical advice for men and women seeking to avoid it.
Sexual conflict permeates ancient religions, from injunctions about thy neighbor's wife to the permissible rape of infidels. It is etched in written laws that dictate who can and cannot have sex with whom. Its manifestations shape our sexual morality, evoking approving accolades or contemptuous condemnation. It produces sexual double standards that flourish even in the most sexually egalitarian cultures on earth. And although every person alive struggles with sexual conflict, most of us see only the tip of the dating deception, a politician's unsavory sexual grab, the slow crumbling of a once-happy marriage, a romantic breakup that turns nasty.
When Men Behave Badly shows that this "battle of the sexes" is deeper and far more pervasive than anyone has recognized, revealing the hidden roots of sexual conflict—roots that originated over deep evolutionary time—which define the sexual psychology we currently carry around in our 3.5-pound brains. Providing novel insights into our minds and behaviors, When Men Behave Badly presents a unifying new theory of sexual conflict, and offers practical advice for men and women seeking to avoid it.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2021
159 people are currently reading
4999 people want to read
About the author
David M. Buss
51 books688 followersDavid M. Buss is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, known for his evolutionary psychology research on human sex differences in mate selection.
Buss earned his PhD in psychology at University of California, Berkeley in 1981. Before becoming a professor at the University of Texas, he was assistant professor for four years at Harvard University, and he was a professor at the University of Michigan for eleven years.
The primary topics of his research include mating strategies, conflict between the sexes, social status, social reputation, prestige, the emotion of jealousy, homicide, anti-homicide defenses, and—most recently—stalking. All of these are approached from an evolutionary perspective. Buss is the author of more than 200 scientific articles and has won many awards, including an APA Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology in 1988 and an APA G. Stanley Hall Lectureship in 1990.
Buss is the author of a number of publications and books, including The Evolution of Desire, The Dangerous Passion, and The Murderer Next Door, which introduces a new theory of homicide from an evolutionary perspective. He is also the author of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, whose fourth edition was released in 2011. In 2005, Buss edited a reference volume, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. His latest book is Why Women Have Sex, which he coauthored with Cindy Meston.
Buss is involved with extensive cross-cultural research collaborations and lectures within the U.S.
Education:
Ph.D.University of California,Berkeley:1981
B.A.University of Texas, Austin: 1976
Academic Employment History:
1996-Present Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin.
1991-1996 Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1985-1991 Associate Professor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1981-1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard University (promoted to Associate Professor, Harvard, 1985)
Buss earned his PhD in psychology at University of California, Berkeley in 1981. Before becoming a professor at the University of Texas, he was assistant professor for four years at Harvard University, and he was a professor at the University of Michigan for eleven years.
The primary topics of his research include mating strategies, conflict between the sexes, social status, social reputation, prestige, the emotion of jealousy, homicide, anti-homicide defenses, and—most recently—stalking. All of these are approached from an evolutionary perspective. Buss is the author of more than 200 scientific articles and has won many awards, including an APA Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology in 1988 and an APA G. Stanley Hall Lectureship in 1990.
Buss is the author of a number of publications and books, including The Evolution of Desire, The Dangerous Passion, and The Murderer Next Door, which introduces a new theory of homicide from an evolutionary perspective. He is also the author of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, whose fourth edition was released in 2011. In 2005, Buss edited a reference volume, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. His latest book is Why Women Have Sex, which he coauthored with Cindy Meston.
Buss is involved with extensive cross-cultural research collaborations and lectures within the U.S.
Education:
Ph.D.University of California,Berkeley:1981
B.A.University of Texas, Austin: 1976
Academic Employment History:
1996-Present Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin.
1991-1996 Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1985-1991 Associate Professor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1981-1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard University (promoted to Associate Professor, Harvard, 1985)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews
March 4, 2021
“Men’s sexual violence towards women remains the most widespread human rights problem in the world.” So says David Buss. It gives a hint to the global mountain of incidents of harassment and abuse the world endures daily. In When Men Behave Badly, Buss has collected an astonishing litany of abuses, origins, variations, defenses and just plain unfathomable data. It is a mind numbing as well as dazzling trip.
There is what is called the dark triad traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The more men have of them, the more violent and objectionable they turn out. The less they have, the more loving, caring, thoughtful and just plain human they turn out to be. On the other hand, men with deep dark triad traits “turn out to be unusually attractive to women,” Buss says, and then goes on to prove it and its almost inevitably grim outcomes. And so, a no-win conflict is baked right into humanity.
Tracing men’s behavior back through the ages has led Buss to claim “Evolution by selection, amoral in nature and indifferent to suffering, has forged some nasty human adaptations.” So there is some excuse for the way some men are, but there is also no excuse for the way those men are, as Buss repeats after every headshaking trait and example is examined.
Among other things, high-scoring Dark Triad men are more possessive, vigilant, deceptive, manipulative, emotionally exploitative, and physically threatening in their mate-guarding tactics compared to men who score low in these traits. They are the ones who track and trail their own spouses, threaten them, threaten other men who talk to them, lock up their spouses, beat them and rape them.
Worse, the women stay, or if they leave, they come back, a global and historical phenomenon that Buss examines in detail.
Rape of spouse is now a crime in most American states. But it wasn’t until as late as 1993, and it is still entirely acceptable in many, many countries and cultures. It’s all part of the patriarchy by which men ensure their role as top predator in any setting. But a remarkable thing is happening: the patriarchy is diminishing in power. All over the world, mass communication and news sharing is shaming the patriarchy into a less significant role, Buss says. In Scandinavian countries, something close to equality has become the norm. The dark trait men will of course fight for it to the death (power is power, after all, and few give it up voluntarily), but the long term trend is definitely downward.
Buss put numbers to the violence, showing how different societies are saddled with it. Intimate partner violence dogs a fairly astonishing 30% of relationships in the USA, and 27% in Canada, for example. These kinds of stats will make readers look at harassment, violence, guarding and the other abuses in a very different light.
There are also two sides to the story. Men get harassed too. Women can be just as manipulative, have affairs, love to tease, trick and walk away from men. Violence against men tends to go all but completely unreported. As police officers in one case told the male victim – you might as well not press charges, because if she has broken so much as a fingernail, it is you who will be arrested, not her.
“Studies have asked women if they ‘ever had sex’ with a man other than their husband while living with their husband. Ten percent of the non-victimized women reported having had an affair; 23 percent of the battered women reported having had an affair; and 47 percent of women who were both battered and raped reported having committed adultery. “ Humanity is complicated.
For all the talk of harassment and abuse, women weigh it according to the man doing it: “Women evaluated sexual advances from a physically attractive man as significantly less disturbing than advances from a physically unattractive man. Workplace sexual advances from men low in desirability, apparently, are more upsetting, “ numerous studies show.
They also weigh a man’s value by his height(!). Women prefer men to be at least six feet tall, preferably with a V-shaped body. They believe those kind of men will not only protect them from others, but become social and financial leaders in their group, tribe, society or country and therefore a better catch. This is a global phenomenon, going back as far a history is recorded.
Because women live in fear. They seek protection, while men seek sex. Women fear men will chase them, attack them, rape them and kill them, especially if they rape them. (It’s not true, but that is their overwhelming fear.)They dream it, live it and are ruled by it. Reading the book can make it seem amazing that these two totally different subspecies ever get together at all.
But back to men behaving badly, they really do a lot of damage to a very large number of women, damage both physical and psychological: “A study of 1,882 American men found that 120, or 6.4 percent, admitted that they had. Of these, about two-thirds were repeat rapists, averaging 5.8 admitted rapes. This sample consisted not of convicted rapists but of college students attending a midsize urban commuter university. Other studies have found that between 6 and 15 percent of college males admit to rape or attempted rape as long as the word “rape” is not included in the description.”
But this is not all by a long shot. Buss devotes a chapter to online dating and the ways both men and women lie, stalk and harass each other. Their strategies just show how trapped they are by their evolutionary position. There is also a chapter on revenge during or after a breakup. The pitfalls are endless, but somehow, Homo sapiens continues on its merry way.
Buss, a psychologist who specializes and teaches the subject, is steeped in studies. They come from all over the world, and he has conducted countless varieties himself. He knows their strengths and weaknesses, and is highly conscious that correlation does not imply causation. This makes the book overflow with cautionary statements, but It is still thorough, engaging if not overwhelming, and myth-busting.
The word fraught comes to mind. It’s a wonder it works at all.
David Wineberg
There is what is called the dark triad traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The more men have of them, the more violent and objectionable they turn out. The less they have, the more loving, caring, thoughtful and just plain human they turn out to be. On the other hand, men with deep dark triad traits “turn out to be unusually attractive to women,” Buss says, and then goes on to prove it and its almost inevitably grim outcomes. And so, a no-win conflict is baked right into humanity.
Tracing men’s behavior back through the ages has led Buss to claim “Evolution by selection, amoral in nature and indifferent to suffering, has forged some nasty human adaptations.” So there is some excuse for the way some men are, but there is also no excuse for the way those men are, as Buss repeats after every headshaking trait and example is examined.
Among other things, high-scoring Dark Triad men are more possessive, vigilant, deceptive, manipulative, emotionally exploitative, and physically threatening in their mate-guarding tactics compared to men who score low in these traits. They are the ones who track and trail their own spouses, threaten them, threaten other men who talk to them, lock up their spouses, beat them and rape them.
Worse, the women stay, or if they leave, they come back, a global and historical phenomenon that Buss examines in detail.
Rape of spouse is now a crime in most American states. But it wasn’t until as late as 1993, and it is still entirely acceptable in many, many countries and cultures. It’s all part of the patriarchy by which men ensure their role as top predator in any setting. But a remarkable thing is happening: the patriarchy is diminishing in power. All over the world, mass communication and news sharing is shaming the patriarchy into a less significant role, Buss says. In Scandinavian countries, something close to equality has become the norm. The dark trait men will of course fight for it to the death (power is power, after all, and few give it up voluntarily), but the long term trend is definitely downward.
Buss put numbers to the violence, showing how different societies are saddled with it. Intimate partner violence dogs a fairly astonishing 30% of relationships in the USA, and 27% in Canada, for example. These kinds of stats will make readers look at harassment, violence, guarding and the other abuses in a very different light.
There are also two sides to the story. Men get harassed too. Women can be just as manipulative, have affairs, love to tease, trick and walk away from men. Violence against men tends to go all but completely unreported. As police officers in one case told the male victim – you might as well not press charges, because if she has broken so much as a fingernail, it is you who will be arrested, not her.
“Studies have asked women if they ‘ever had sex’ with a man other than their husband while living with their husband. Ten percent of the non-victimized women reported having had an affair; 23 percent of the battered women reported having had an affair; and 47 percent of women who were both battered and raped reported having committed adultery. “ Humanity is complicated.
For all the talk of harassment and abuse, women weigh it according to the man doing it: “Women evaluated sexual advances from a physically attractive man as significantly less disturbing than advances from a physically unattractive man. Workplace sexual advances from men low in desirability, apparently, are more upsetting, “ numerous studies show.
They also weigh a man’s value by his height(!). Women prefer men to be at least six feet tall, preferably with a V-shaped body. They believe those kind of men will not only protect them from others, but become social and financial leaders in their group, tribe, society or country and therefore a better catch. This is a global phenomenon, going back as far a history is recorded.
Because women live in fear. They seek protection, while men seek sex. Women fear men will chase them, attack them, rape them and kill them, especially if they rape them. (It’s not true, but that is their overwhelming fear.)They dream it, live it and are ruled by it. Reading the book can make it seem amazing that these two totally different subspecies ever get together at all.
But back to men behaving badly, they really do a lot of damage to a very large number of women, damage both physical and psychological: “A study of 1,882 American men found that 120, or 6.4 percent, admitted that they had. Of these, about two-thirds were repeat rapists, averaging 5.8 admitted rapes. This sample consisted not of convicted rapists but of college students attending a midsize urban commuter university. Other studies have found that between 6 and 15 percent of college males admit to rape or attempted rape as long as the word “rape” is not included in the description.”
But this is not all by a long shot. Buss devotes a chapter to online dating and the ways both men and women lie, stalk and harass each other. Their strategies just show how trapped they are by their evolutionary position. There is also a chapter on revenge during or after a breakup. The pitfalls are endless, but somehow, Homo sapiens continues on its merry way.
Buss, a psychologist who specializes and teaches the subject, is steeped in studies. They come from all over the world, and he has conducted countless varieties himself. He knows their strengths and weaknesses, and is highly conscious that correlation does not imply causation. This makes the book overflow with cautionary statements, but It is still thorough, engaging if not overwhelming, and myth-busting.
The word fraught comes to mind. It’s a wonder it works at all.
David Wineberg
September 7, 2021
I became familiar with David Buss and his work when Dr. Justin Lehmiller interviewed him on his podcast “Sex and Psychology”. I was intrigued by the Dark Triad of personality traits - narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy - and wanted to know more, so I bought his book.
Buss has acquired a name for himself “explaining” the origins of rape, sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and other terrible outcomes of heterosexual relationships in our culture. His work is compelling. Everyone wants to understand the nature of such ills.
But he has capitalized on this by cherry-picking research and using it to buttress his own hypotheses that such behaviors are rooted in evolutionary psychology. He has done this without educating himself about what more distinguished academicians and clinicians before him have already found out about such behaviors.
Buss is reductionist in his statements. For example, he is known for contending that human relationships are basically distilled into mate desirability and resource allocation: men don’t want to allocate resources to raising other men’s children so they care more about whether or not their mates have sexual intercourse with other men rather than whether they fell in love with them; and women need a man to provide for them and care for them so they care more about whether or not their mates have fallen in love with another mate rather than whether they have had sexual intercourse with him (pages 79-101). Women value status and income, and men value physical attractiveness. He discusses “mate guarding” and jealousy as serving important purposes and essentially ignores research from other schools of psychology regarding such behaviors. These aren’t new ideas.
Perhaps most glaringly, he dedicates a chapter on intimate partner violence that DEFENDS it as an effective tactic in getting battered women to return to their abusers. “Unfortunately, violent tactics sometimes work” he writes on page 137, stating that “79 percent of battered women ended up returning to live with their abuser” (sic - should be “abusers”). He is either ignorant about or deliberately dismissive of the body of work of a far greater researcher and doctor in this field, Bessel Van Der Kolk, whose life was dedicated to the study of trauma and its effects on people’s lives and behaviors. Women return to their abusers not because the intimate partner violence they suffer is so effective, but because they are the survivors of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that predispose them to involvement with men who perpetuate the trauma they grew up witnessing and experiencing at the hands of their caregivers.
There are several other egregious conclusions he draws based on what I believe to be his a priori hypothesizing. He uses one study - just one - in Nicaragua, to explain abortion-inducing physical torture as an aspect of intimate partner violence that is no different from “male lions that kill the baby cubs sired by their rivals in order to bring a new female back into estrus”. So men, tell me, are you any different from these male lions? David Buss says you aren’t. And women, are you willing to wade through yet more patriarchal and sexist assumptions about why we will always be at the mercy of men due to our inherent “sex differences”?
At the end of the book, I wasn’t any wiser about why men behave as badly as they sometimes do.
Buss has acquired a name for himself “explaining” the origins of rape, sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and other terrible outcomes of heterosexual relationships in our culture. His work is compelling. Everyone wants to understand the nature of such ills.
But he has capitalized on this by cherry-picking research and using it to buttress his own hypotheses that such behaviors are rooted in evolutionary psychology. He has done this without educating himself about what more distinguished academicians and clinicians before him have already found out about such behaviors.
Buss is reductionist in his statements. For example, he is known for contending that human relationships are basically distilled into mate desirability and resource allocation: men don’t want to allocate resources to raising other men’s children so they care more about whether or not their mates have sexual intercourse with other men rather than whether they fell in love with them; and women need a man to provide for them and care for them so they care more about whether or not their mates have fallen in love with another mate rather than whether they have had sexual intercourse with him (pages 79-101). Women value status and income, and men value physical attractiveness. He discusses “mate guarding” and jealousy as serving important purposes and essentially ignores research from other schools of psychology regarding such behaviors. These aren’t new ideas.
Perhaps most glaringly, he dedicates a chapter on intimate partner violence that DEFENDS it as an effective tactic in getting battered women to return to their abusers. “Unfortunately, violent tactics sometimes work” he writes on page 137, stating that “79 percent of battered women ended up returning to live with their abuser” (sic - should be “abusers”). He is either ignorant about or deliberately dismissive of the body of work of a far greater researcher and doctor in this field, Bessel Van Der Kolk, whose life was dedicated to the study of trauma and its effects on people’s lives and behaviors. Women return to their abusers not because the intimate partner violence they suffer is so effective, but because they are the survivors of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that predispose them to involvement with men who perpetuate the trauma they grew up witnessing and experiencing at the hands of their caregivers.
There are several other egregious conclusions he draws based on what I believe to be his a priori hypothesizing. He uses one study - just one - in Nicaragua, to explain abortion-inducing physical torture as an aspect of intimate partner violence that is no different from “male lions that kill the baby cubs sired by their rivals in order to bring a new female back into estrus”. So men, tell me, are you any different from these male lions? David Buss says you aren’t. And women, are you willing to wade through yet more patriarchal and sexist assumptions about why we will always be at the mercy of men due to our inherent “sex differences”?
At the end of the book, I wasn’t any wiser about why men behave as badly as they sometimes do.
September 29, 2022
In all cases where Buss talks about large sex differences in When Men Behave Badly, he ignores studies that have contradicted the findings he cites, giving the impression that those he cites are the only relevant science and that his conclusions are uncontested when they are not.
For example, scholars have redone studies of receptivity to casual sexual encounters, controlling for predicted pressure, risk, and reputation, which caused the gap in receptivity to converge. Differences in number of desired partners also converge under a bogus pipeline condition. Additionally, while differences persist, what is notable is how they change over time and across cultures with increasing gender equality.
In order to avoid identifying how changes occur with increasing gender equality, Buss underscores persistence of differences rather than looking at how those differences have changed. He also cherry picks outliers in order to argue that increasing gender equality doesn’t have a significant impact, such as with IPV. The fact is that IPV is regionally inversely correlated with gender equality across the world. Buss’s cherry picked Northern European countries that still have high rates of IPV do not discount the general pattern.
He furthermore repeatedly attributes sexual behavior and attitudes that are heavily influenced by culture to evolution. Though he does acknowledge the effects of culture on rape prevalence, he repeatedly discounts the effects of culture on other sexual attitudes and behaviors.
Though he repeatedly discusses the ways in which female sexuality is suppressed, while repeatedly insisting a woman’s mate value decreases with number of partners, he seems to assume that female sexual choice is nevertheless free and autonomous under these conditions. He then presents female choices as evidence of female nature rather than simply enforced by cultures that impose penalties on women for being too sexual.
He also says, “Adding sex partners for women who already have one generally does not, and never could have, dramatically increase their reproductive success.” This has been proven false by studies showing that mating multiply has an even greater effect on female reproductive success than male in some societies, that children benefit from having multiple dads in societies that believe that is possible, etc. It is also illogical, as extra-pair mating is a hedge against infertility, common to 7% of men and also allows for more genetic diversity of offspring.
Throughout the book, Buss argues that men are evolved to oppress, control, manipulate, and harm women. He argues that such proclivities in men are biological and nearly universal.
As someone who is loved and supported by many male friends and family members, reading this hurt deeply. I’ve had to question if my trust has been misplaced, if I am willfully blind.
What bothers me on a deep level is why a man would want to write a book about how men are evolved to hate and oppress women and why other men, like Steven Pinker, would recommend it. As for the women who have lauded this book, I question what has gone on in their lives that they would accept such a hostile account of gender relations as in our nature.
As hard as it is for me to hold onto my beliefs about the goodness of men after reading this, my lived experience tells an entirely different story. And I deeply hope that both men and women can hold men to higher standards so that my experience can be more common in this world.
This book feels like a book explaining how humans evolved to enslave other humans, published before the civil war, positing that enslavement is likely inevitable and simply part of our nature.
One thing to note is that male sexual harassers, assaulters, and rapists often defend their choices by insisting that other men are the same as them. So I deeply question the character of the author as well as of men who find this book palatable.
Having just read Untrue by Wednesday Martin, which gives a completely different account of female sexuality, I hope to see more counter-narratives.
Is not the success of our species, which relies ultimately on cooperation, predicated on men and women complementing each other, working together? Do we really think a “battle of the sexes” is some inevitable facet of human nature? I have great trouble with this.
For example, scholars have redone studies of receptivity to casual sexual encounters, controlling for predicted pressure, risk, and reputation, which caused the gap in receptivity to converge. Differences in number of desired partners also converge under a bogus pipeline condition. Additionally, while differences persist, what is notable is how they change over time and across cultures with increasing gender equality.
In order to avoid identifying how changes occur with increasing gender equality, Buss underscores persistence of differences rather than looking at how those differences have changed. He also cherry picks outliers in order to argue that increasing gender equality doesn’t have a significant impact, such as with IPV. The fact is that IPV is regionally inversely correlated with gender equality across the world. Buss’s cherry picked Northern European countries that still have high rates of IPV do not discount the general pattern.
He furthermore repeatedly attributes sexual behavior and attitudes that are heavily influenced by culture to evolution. Though he does acknowledge the effects of culture on rape prevalence, he repeatedly discounts the effects of culture on other sexual attitudes and behaviors.
Though he repeatedly discusses the ways in which female sexuality is suppressed, while repeatedly insisting a woman’s mate value decreases with number of partners, he seems to assume that female sexual choice is nevertheless free and autonomous under these conditions. He then presents female choices as evidence of female nature rather than simply enforced by cultures that impose penalties on women for being too sexual.
He also says, “Adding sex partners for women who already have one generally does not, and never could have, dramatically increase their reproductive success.” This has been proven false by studies showing that mating multiply has an even greater effect on female reproductive success than male in some societies, that children benefit from having multiple dads in societies that believe that is possible, etc. It is also illogical, as extra-pair mating is a hedge against infertility, common to 7% of men and also allows for more genetic diversity of offspring.
Throughout the book, Buss argues that men are evolved to oppress, control, manipulate, and harm women. He argues that such proclivities in men are biological and nearly universal.
As someone who is loved and supported by many male friends and family members, reading this hurt deeply. I’ve had to question if my trust has been misplaced, if I am willfully blind.
What bothers me on a deep level is why a man would want to write a book about how men are evolved to hate and oppress women and why other men, like Steven Pinker, would recommend it. As for the women who have lauded this book, I question what has gone on in their lives that they would accept such a hostile account of gender relations as in our nature.
As hard as it is for me to hold onto my beliefs about the goodness of men after reading this, my lived experience tells an entirely different story. And I deeply hope that both men and women can hold men to higher standards so that my experience can be more common in this world.
This book feels like a book explaining how humans evolved to enslave other humans, published before the civil war, positing that enslavement is likely inevitable and simply part of our nature.
One thing to note is that male sexual harassers, assaulters, and rapists often defend their choices by insisting that other men are the same as them. So I deeply question the character of the author as well as of men who find this book palatable.
Having just read Untrue by Wednesday Martin, which gives a completely different account of female sexuality, I hope to see more counter-narratives.
Is not the success of our species, which relies ultimately on cooperation, predicated on men and women complementing each other, working together? Do we really think a “battle of the sexes” is some inevitable facet of human nature? I have great trouble with this.
May 2, 2021
Еволюционният психолог David M. Buss има нова книга и задължително трябва да я прочетете. Ще научите еволюционните причини за буквално всички проблеми в сексуалните взимоотношения между половете. Накратко, сексуалните стратегии на мъжете и жените се различават и са в непрестанна еволюционна надпревара за надмощие. Загубата може да е еволюционно самоубийство - оставане без деца или със значително по-малко от наличния потенциал.
Легендарната книгата Sperm Wars на Robin Baker е значително по-скандална и няма да се хареса на всеки, но When men behave badly на David M. Buss е еволюционна психология, подкрепена с данни, в най-чист вид. Трябва да прочетете, за да не се чудите защо сексуалните взаимоотношения са толкова сложни и понякога неинтуитивни.
Истината няма да се хареса на много хора - религиозни фанатици, феминистки, фалшиви експерти, завършили психология в неелитен университет. Поведението ни е резултат на безмилостния процес на еволюцията. А както авторът пише, сексуалният пазар е изключително недемократичен. Затова трябва да знаете неговите правила и особености. Прочетете книгата.
Легендарната книгата Sperm Wars на Robin Baker е значително по-скандална и няма да се хареса на всеки, но When men behave badly на David M. Buss е еволюционна психология, подкрепена с данни, в най-чист вид. Трябва да прочетете, за да не се чудите защо сексуалните взаимоотношения са толкова сложни и понякога неинтуитивни.
Истината няма да се хареса на много хора - религиозни фанатици, феминистки, фалшиви експерти, завършили психология в неелитен университет. Поведението ни е резултат на безмилостния процес на еволюцията. А както авторът пише, сексуалният пазар е изключително недемократичен. Затова трябва да знаете неговите правила и особености. Прочетете книгата.
May 1, 2021
لننظر في حالة العنكبوت من عائلة(بياسورا ميرابيليس) ... لجذب الأنثى ، يجب على الذكر أن يمسك حشرة ليقدمها كهدية للزواج ، وهي مهمة شاقة ، يفشل فيها كثيراً . تقبل الإناث أحيانًا العروض وتتزاوج مع الذكور الذين يقدمون الهدايا أثناء تناول العشاء اللذيذ. لكنهم في بعض الأحيان يستولون على الهدية ويهربون قبل الجماع ، تاركين وراءهم الذكور المحبطين جنسياً. يبدو أن الإناث الهاربات قد كسبن أول دفعة من هذه المعركة - وجبة مجانية على حساب الذكر. ومع ذلك ، فقد طورت ذكور العناكب استراتيجيتين مضادتين:
أولاً ، يمكنهم أحيانًا أن يتظاهروا بالموت لأن الأنثى تسحب وجبتها اللذيذة إلى مكان خاص للاستهلاك. عندما تستقر لتناول العشاء ، يعود الذكر إلى الحياة ويجامعها أثناء تناول الطعام. أحيانًا ينجح الذكر ، لكن ليس دائمًا.
يأتي النجاح في كثير من الأحيان للذكور الذين يستخدمون استراتيجية ثانية : تغليف الوجبة في عبوة من الحرير كهدية. ولكن إذا فشل ذكر العنكبوت في العثور على طعام لذيذ ليقدمه ، فإنه يقوم أحيانًا بلف القمامة التي لا قيمة لها بالحرير ، مثل كتلة من الأوساخ أو بذرة غير صالحة للأكل. يخفي الحرير محتويات العبوة. كما تجعل خيوط الحرير العبوة أسهل للذكور ، مما يمنع محاولات الإناث للإمساك بها والهرب . يجذب التغليف الجذاب الأنثى ، ويمكن للذكر أن يجامعها أثناء انشغالها بفك الحزمة المغرية المخادعة.
إذا اكتشفت الحيلة ، فوجدت القمامة بدلاً من الوجبة في الداخل ، فإنها تطرد الذكر فجأة ، وتنهي المواجهة قبل أن ينتهي من الجماع. علاوة على ذلك ، تستخدم الإناث الرائحة لاكتشاف ما إذا كانت الوجبة المشروعة موجودة داخل الغلاف ، وتتجنب الهدايا التي تفتقر إلى الرائحة الصحيحة. ومع ذلك ، يقوم الذكور أحيانًا بلفّ بقايا الوجبة التي تناولوها ، تاركين أثرًا لرائحة الطعام لخداع الإناث. تطورت الإناث بدورها لاكتشاف جودة الحزمة بسرعة ، وفي بعض الأحيان سيرفضن العروض التي يُنظر إليها على أنها ناقصة.
كما نرى يبدو أن إناث العناكب من الصعب إرضاءها بشأن من تتزاوج معه!!
البشر ليسوا عناكب ، لكننا لسنا معفيين من نفس الأمر. مثال عنكبوت (بياسورا ميرابيليس) هو مجرد واحد من بين آلاف الأمثلة ، لكنه يوضح مبدأ توضيحي نقدي : مبدأ التطور المشترك للنزاع الجنسي. لكل تكتيك يطوّره أحد الجنسين لاستغلال الآخر ، يوجد على الأقل دفاع يقابله في الجنس الآخر .
.
David Buss
When Men Behave Badly
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
أولاً ، يمكنهم أحيانًا أن يتظاهروا بالموت لأن الأنثى تسحب وجبتها اللذيذة إلى مكان خاص للاستهلاك. عندما تستقر لتناول العشاء ، يعود الذكر إلى الحياة ويجامعها أثناء تناول الطعام. أحيانًا ينجح الذكر ، لكن ليس دائمًا.
يأتي النجاح في كثير من الأحيان للذكور الذين يستخدمون استراتيجية ثانية : تغليف الوجبة في عبوة من الحرير كهدية. ولكن إذا فشل ذكر العنكبوت في العثور على طعام لذيذ ليقدمه ، فإنه يقوم أحيانًا بلف القمامة التي لا قيمة لها بالحرير ، مثل كتلة من الأوساخ أو بذرة غير صالحة للأكل. يخفي الحرير محتويات العبوة. كما تجعل خيوط الحرير العبوة أسهل للذكور ، مما يمنع محاولات الإناث للإمساك بها والهرب . يجذب التغليف الجذاب الأنثى ، ويمكن للذكر أن يجامعها أثناء انشغالها بفك الحزمة المغرية المخادعة.
إذا اكتشفت الحيلة ، فوجدت القمامة بدلاً من الوجبة في الداخل ، فإنها تطرد الذكر فجأة ، وتنهي المواجهة قبل أن ينتهي من الجماع. علاوة على ذلك ، تستخدم الإناث الرائحة لاكتشاف ما إذا كانت الوجبة المشروعة موجودة داخل الغلاف ، وتتجنب الهدايا التي تفتقر إلى الرائحة الصحيحة. ومع ذلك ، يقوم الذكور أحيانًا بلفّ بقايا الوجبة التي تناولوها ، تاركين أثرًا لرائحة الطعام لخداع الإناث. تطورت الإناث بدورها لاكتشاف جودة الحزمة بسرعة ، وفي بعض الأحيان سيرفضن العروض التي يُنظر إليها على أنها ناقصة.
كما نرى يبدو أن إناث العناكب من الصعب إرضاءها بشأن من تتزاوج معه!!
البشر ليسوا عناكب ، لكننا لسنا معفيين من نفس الأمر. مثال عنكبوت (بياسورا ميرابيليس) هو مجرد واحد من بين آلاف الأمثلة ، لكنه يوضح مبدأ توضيحي نقدي : مبدأ التطور المشترك للنزاع الجنسي. لكل تكتيك يطوّره أحد الجنسين لاستغلال الآخر ، يوجد على الأقل دفاع يقابله في الجنس الآخر .
.
David Buss
When Men Behave Badly
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
January 1, 2022
Seems more like a book for “in defense of men” where a lot of the solutions are for women to “understand” men and for institutions to make allowances for men. I’m actually disappointed as this author is one for the most influential psychologists on this topic. Guess we need more female presence in this field.
July 17, 2021
Every now and then, I read a book, and all I can think is, “How is this not required reading?” That’s exactly what I thought as I finished this new book from David Buss. It took me way too long to read the work of David Buss, but I kept seeing people talk about his books, so right before this new book, I read The Evolution of Desire. While the first few chapters of this new book had some of the same topics from The Evolution of Desire, it was just setting the foundation for upcoming subjects Buss was going to dive into. I love evolutionary psychology, and this book discusses the reasons behind intimate partner violence, stalking and revenge after a breakup, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and so much more.
As a father and someone who is friends with many women, I can’t stress enough how important this book is. When my son is older, I’m absolutely going to have him read this book, and I think this book may help women as well, but I’m not sure. I’m going to go find some reviews from women and see if this has any therapeutic value since so many women have been victims of what’s discussed in this book. If nothing else, the book provides education and awareness so we can all do our part to change patriarchal norms to hopefully decrease instances of violence against women.
As a father and someone who is friends with many women, I can’t stress enough how important this book is. When my son is older, I’m absolutely going to have him read this book, and I think this book may help women as well, but I’m not sure. I’m going to go find some reviews from women and see if this has any therapeutic value since so many women have been victims of what’s discussed in this book. If nothing else, the book provides education and awareness so we can all do our part to change patriarchal norms to hopefully decrease instances of violence against women.
August 23, 2021
This should be required reading for every eighteen year old. Especially young men. Three words: sexual over-perception bias.
Very thoughtful exploration of heavy but intuitive materials and a deep exploration of such subject matters as: harassment, rape, revenge porn (and porn in general), etc. An incredible read.
Very thoughtful exploration of heavy but intuitive materials and a deep exploration of such subject matters as: harassment, rape, revenge porn (and porn in general), etc. An incredible read.
March 28, 2023
A must-read for humanity. There was a time in which some people thought that evolutionary psychology was not science, but also that this was anti-feminist white male patriarchal bullshit.
It was never like this, but, what we really gotta keep in mind is "Veritas odium parit".
Progressive ideology tells you and wants to make you believe that there's no such thing as male and female. We have more than 70 genders nowadays, most of them are a product of self-perception by stupid teenagers that lacked parental affection. But, it turns out, we can never override biology. There is a female mind and a male brain. Our species is nothing more than a mammal, a primate with a big brain, developed through contrivance and for many, many years.
That difference has created certain gaps or problems that somehow shaped our civilization. Patriarchal theory, is at some point correct; men fight for power over women, but, do we really know why? Understanding male thinking, evolutionary psychology can clear those questions and will let us create a more egalitarian world (please, do not confuse with DIE ideology); that's how we shape our culture. There was a time in which marital rape was not a crime, now it is. Understanding why we behave the way we do, will help us detect flaws in our behavior. Simple as that.
The book may be aimed for adults due to its contents, here we are talking about rape, consequences of it, studies that derive from it, sexual assault, stalkers, and sick people, mostly men. This is a point that we gotta be clear: there's no such thing as biological determinism. The mind contains billions of neurons, every human being may act differently. What evolutionary psychology does is explain itself via statistical analysis. e.g. Males are taller than women. But you are 6 ft. You are taller than your brothers. That does not negate the statistical curves concerning male and female height. The same goes with behaviour. Rape can be towards men or women. However, most rapists are men, and most victims are women. Most stalkers are men. Even females who score high in Dark Triad Traits (macchiavelism, psychopathy and narcissism) are less violent than men that score high in the same traits; those are the differences that shape our world. Our civilization is a by-product of our minds. We do not only created myth, books, art and culture, patterns of behavior are also created by our brains, both female and male.
The last part of the book argues about bringing together differences in order to make a better world. We no longer need hypermasculinity or violence, at some point, we gotta be a little more women, meaning that women have developed strategies to avoid conflict and be more peaceful, that's why we will never find women as genocidal maniacs.
This review does not even contain one percent of what is written in the book. The book is full of useful information; studies that show why we behave the way we do, from intense looks in the street to watching porn. Porn is a novelty, like media, that we still dont know how to grasp it.
The book may serve as a guide for women, and a mirror so men can reflect on every time there is a hint of commiting something violent, and try and stop that, we have the chance to be better.
It was never like this, but, what we really gotta keep in mind is "Veritas odium parit".
Progressive ideology tells you and wants to make you believe that there's no such thing as male and female. We have more than 70 genders nowadays, most of them are a product of self-perception by stupid teenagers that lacked parental affection. But, it turns out, we can never override biology. There is a female mind and a male brain. Our species is nothing more than a mammal, a primate with a big brain, developed through contrivance and for many, many years.
That difference has created certain gaps or problems that somehow shaped our civilization. Patriarchal theory, is at some point correct; men fight for power over women, but, do we really know why? Understanding male thinking, evolutionary psychology can clear those questions and will let us create a more egalitarian world (please, do not confuse with DIE ideology); that's how we shape our culture. There was a time in which marital rape was not a crime, now it is. Understanding why we behave the way we do, will help us detect flaws in our behavior. Simple as that.
The book may be aimed for adults due to its contents, here we are talking about rape, consequences of it, studies that derive from it, sexual assault, stalkers, and sick people, mostly men. This is a point that we gotta be clear: there's no such thing as biological determinism. The mind contains billions of neurons, every human being may act differently. What evolutionary psychology does is explain itself via statistical analysis. e.g. Males are taller than women. But you are 6 ft. You are taller than your brothers. That does not negate the statistical curves concerning male and female height. The same goes with behaviour. Rape can be towards men or women. However, most rapists are men, and most victims are women. Most stalkers are men. Even females who score high in Dark Triad Traits (macchiavelism, psychopathy and narcissism) are less violent than men that score high in the same traits; those are the differences that shape our world. Our civilization is a by-product of our minds. We do not only created myth, books, art and culture, patterns of behavior are also created by our brains, both female and male.
The last part of the book argues about bringing together differences in order to make a better world. We no longer need hypermasculinity or violence, at some point, we gotta be a little more women, meaning that women have developed strategies to avoid conflict and be more peaceful, that's why we will never find women as genocidal maniacs.
This review does not even contain one percent of what is written in the book. The book is full of useful information; studies that show why we behave the way we do, from intense looks in the street to watching porn. Porn is a novelty, like media, that we still dont know how to grasp it.
The book may serve as a guide for women, and a mirror so men can reflect on every time there is a hint of commiting something violent, and try and stop that, we have the chance to be better.
May 12, 2021
An interesting read about the "battle of sexes" aspect told through the eyes of David Buss, a professor of psychology and expert on human behaviour and evolution in society. Using psychological and behavioural evidence, Buss digs deep into how gender politics operate within the context of sexual violence. An important book in the midst of the #MeToo movement. This book seeks to further understand why do men engage in this type of violence. Using case studies, Buss argues that based on science that not all men are sexual predators. He justifies his claim by stating that "sexual harassers score high on the Dark Triad of personality traits - narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy" and again using this concept of the dark triad, Buss further argues that women can be sexual aggressors too.
Buss's monograph is, therefore, engaging in a current conversation. The only critique that I can offer is that it is very specialized literature that caters to a particular academic audience or audiences who are interested in this subject. T
Overall, an interesting read. Thank you Netgalley for the electronic ARC of his monograph!
Buss's monograph is, therefore, engaging in a current conversation. The only critique that I can offer is that it is very specialized literature that caters to a particular academic audience or audiences who are interested in this subject. T
Overall, an interesting read. Thank you Netgalley for the electronic ARC of his monograph!
March 28, 2021
This review was posted on my Psychology Today blog at:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl...
Review of David Buss's When Men Behave Badly
Background
I have followed David Buss's research from the time we were both graduate students in the late 1970s—David studied at UC Berkeley and I, at Johns Hopkins. We were in similar situations, both enrolled in graduate programs in personality psychology, but probably only because there were at that time no graduate programs in evolutionary psychology, which was our true interest. Personality psychology was probably the most hospitable home for aspiring evolutionary psychologists at that time, given that at least some personality theories assumed there was such a thing as evolved human nature. I was fortunate in that my graduate school advisor was actively developing such a theory, which he eventually named socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1982).
However, most personality psychologists in the 1970s focused more on personality measurement than theory, much less evolutionary theory. Such was the case at Berkeley, so David had little professional support for his evolutionary interests. I recall reading one of his graduate school manuscripts that he had submitted for publication, a paper in which he argued for looking at personality from an evolutionary perspective. Whoever reviewed the manuscript thoroughly trashed it. I was horrified by the reviewers' savage comments, which made me pessimistic about David's budding career as an evolutionary psychologist and about the nascent field of evolutionary psychology in general.
Fortunately, David Buss was—and still is—a remarkably tenacious psychologist. Initially marketing himself as a personality psychologist, he landed his first job at Harvard. [As a personal side note, I had interviewed for the same position right before David interviewed, and was told by the chair of the department that they were planning on offering me the position until David interviewed. Which is fine with me in retrospect. I doubt that I could have used the Harvard position as effectively as David.] Harvard was an excellent environment for an aspiring evolutionary psychologist, not because the Department of Psychology and Social Relations had evolutionary thinkers but because of strong evolutionary thinkers in other departments (e.g., E. O. Wilson in Biology and Irven DeVore in Anthropology). David persisted, and eventually the graduate school manuscript that had been so harshly criticized was published in psychology's premier professional journal, the American Psychologist (Buss, 1984).
While at Harvard, David was extremely fortunate to meet two students in the Anthropology PhD program, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides. Tooby and Cosmides, after establishing themselves at UC Santa Barbara, are credited with helping to found evolutionary psychology as a recognized scientific field. David's continued interactions with Tooby and Cosmides, as well as Donald Symons (also established at UC Santa Barbara and recognized as a founder of evolutionary psychology) helped him to develop an approach to studying human behavior from an evolutionary perspective.
David Buss's New Book: When Men Behave Badly
Although David has continued to address the nature of personality from an evolutionary perspective from time to time, he has devoted nearly all of his research energy toward understanding evolved differences in male and female psychology, and his most recent book represents the latest example of that. In reading his books and articles on that topic over the past 40 years, I have noticed a pattern. He begins with a phenomenon that is already pretty much common knowledge (or at least a common supposition) in the general public. For example, that men tend to prefer a younger mate, and women, an older mate. Or that men tend to be more interested in a woman's physical appearance than her social and financial status, while the reverse tends to be true for women. Or that men tend to prefer to have more sexual partners than women. Next, he explains how such sex differences might have evolved from a few core, undisputable differences between what men and women need to do in order to produce viable offspring, particularly differences in the amount of energy, time, and risk involved in conceiving, gestating, birthing, feeding, and rearing offspring. Finally, he assembles data from his own and others' empirical studies that provide more precise details about the phenomenon he is studying. Exactly what is the typical age difference in couples, and does that average difference vary across cultures or across different points in the life span? Exactly which female physical features attract men the most, and how important is social status to women, compared to other traits such as height, intelligence, sense of humor, thoughtfulness, and signs of commitment? Exactly how many sexual partners do women and men regard as ideal, and what factors influence how many partners one actually has?
When Men Behave Badly follows the formula described above. Buss identifies a number well-known "bad male behaviors," that is, male behaviors that interfere with women's choices and goals. These include the following: pretending to have more status or financial resources than they really have; pretending to be interested in a long-term relationship when they are only interested in a short-term sexual relationship; engaging in secret sexual affairs; being hyper-vigilant, suspicious, jealous, and controlling of their mates; pursuing women particularly vulnerable women (women who are young, inexperienced, and lacking in self-confidence); using alcohol and drugs to disarm and disable women; forcing women to have sex against their will; objectifying women by focusing only on their bodies; stalking women who are not interested in them; seeking revenge after a breakup by spreading stories and posting pictures and videos on the Internet; and physically and psychologically abusing women and threatening violence to prevent them from leaving a relationship.
Along the way, Buss does mention female versions of deception, infidelity, jealousy, and manipulation, presumably to present a more complete picture of conflicts in relationships. But the focus is on bad male behaviors, which Buss documents with research from his own lab, from other labs, from cross-cultural studies, and analogies in other species. He also sprinkles in a variety of personal anecdotes about famous people, ordinary people who made the news due to a relationship conflict, imaginary characters from movies, and people he has known personally. Obviously, a scientific account of human behavior cannot be based only on anecdotes, but the personally stories he shares are great illustrations and really bring his account to life.
How Evolutionary Psychology Can Help
Now, how does evolutionary theory add to our understanding of well-known bad male behaviors that have also been documented in detail with scientific studies? Anti-evolutionists claim that it does not, that evolutionary accounts are just-so story-telling. Even worse, some anti-evolutionists might claim that evolutionary accounts of bad male behavior somehow justify and excuse such behavior because "evolutionary" and "genetic" imply that such behaviors are inevitable. Such complaints demonstrate a poor understanding of evolved traits and evolutionary explanations, and Buss strives to correct these misunderstandings. He points out that evolved psychological traits do not manifest themselves constantly in every situation. All men do not rape women all the time. Identifying exactly the conditions under which men are most likely to deceive, have an affair, become suspicious and controlling, force women to have sex, and engage in stalking, revenge, and physical abuse—along with an evolutionary understanding of what men are trying to accomplish with these bad behaviors—can suggest to us how to change policies, laws, and the social environment, and how to educate men and women to reduce the likelihood of these bad behaviors in the future.
Personally, I favor evolutionary education as a partial antidote to the problem of bad male behavior. To use one example from Buss's book, most people figure out on their own that everyone has a "mate value" (all the things that make you desirable as a mate) and that you are most likely to successfully attract someone with the same mate value as you. That is, if you are a man whose mate value is a 6 on a scale from 1 to 10, you are much more likely to attract a woman who is a 6 than a woman with a higher mate value. But what most men probably do not know is that men tend to overestimate their mate value. A 6 might think of himself as an 8 or even a 9 and therefore pursue women who are higher on the mate value scale. When the 6 man's advances are resisted by an 8 woman, the over-confident man might feel justified in applying what is really unwarranted pressure on the 8 woman. That is, he engages in bad behavior. If all men could take a course in evolutionary and learn about mate value and how to realistically assess their own value, this might reduce the amount of inappropriate pursuit of mates.
Education can also help women to recognize when and why men are trying to control them and what kind of counter-strategies they can use to break free from such attempts to control. Men who are insecure about their mate value and do not know how to attract women with the things that women really want often resort to tactics such as threats and violence to keep their mates from leaving them. In the distant past, women usually had male relatives (brothers, father, uncles) to help protect them from this kind of control. But in modern, industrial societies, members of a family often live so far apart that members of a family cannot directly protect each other. An insecure man may attempt to increase his control over his mate by preventing her from even talking to members of her family or other friends who might help. With proper education, women can recognize such a scenario and take steps to get help from others before her mate's efforts to control her escalate to physical abuse.
Buss also suggests that women can empower themselves by reconsidering their priorities while looking for a mate. At the top of the list of valuable traits in a mate for many women is the ability of a man to provide economic resources to her and any children she might have. A man's ability to provide resources is generally linked to his social status. Unfortunately, many men who are successful at achieving status, power, and money are ruthless. They also tend to be unfaithful because there are many other women who will be attracted to their economic position. So many of our female ancestors were attracted to powerful, high-status men, that sexual selection has created a horde of status-hungry men and women who are still attracted primarily to status in modern times. But there are many other traits that contribute to a man's mate value, and a woman does have choices today about which traits to use in selecting a mate. Although she might hear the allure of status whispering in her ear, she can still focus on other traits such as kindness, reliability, and empathy that would make a man a good mate.
Of course, downplaying the ability of man to provide for her and her children will depend on whether a woman can manage without a lot of resources from her mate. This, in turn, will depend on the economic and social structure of the culture in which women live. Buss does talk about changing social structures to help reduce bad male behaviors. I agree that this is desirable, but it is more time-consuming than education, so this is more of a long-term project. Buss notes that one characteristic of societies where women suffer less physical abuse are societies such as those in the Scandinavian countries where there is greater economic equality between men and women. Women without economic means are more vulnerable to control and abuse by their mates, so economic gender parity reduces bad male behavior.
Another characteristic of societies that exacerbates the problem of bad male behavior are unequal sex ratios where the number of males is far greater than the number of females. When there are not enough women for everyone, men are more likely to engage in violence against each other as well as against women. Sadly, there has been an historical bias toward having sons rather than daughters, in in some societies girls were actually killed or left to die as babies. That is obviously bad in itself, but it also produces a sex ratio that is likely to cause problems when the boys reach adulthood and have difficulty finding a mate. A surplus of males does not help anyone except maybe warlords who send the surplus men into battles.
Whereas David Buss clearly spells out how economic parity between the sexes helps to reduce bad male behavior, he only hints at the impact of economic inequality within the male population. I would like to spell out what I think Buss is suggesting. For better or worse, women today are still more attracted to men who are rich than men who are poor. Being poor not only drastically and directly reduces a man's attractiveness to women; being poor is also associated with an inferior education (you are unlikely to attend college and take a course in evolutionary psychology), greater susceptibility to drug and alcohol addiction, involvement in crime, and a host of other factors that reduce a man's mate value. What recourse does a man in such a position have except violence against women? There will always be some economic inequality in modern societies, but the degree of such inequality has grown to obscene proportions in the United States. I am not suggesting a Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor to reduce economic inequality. I am not an economist and don't have a specific solution for increasing economic parity among men as well as between men and women. But I am saying that if we can somehow manage to reduce economic inequality both within and between sexes, money and status will become less important factors in intra- and intersexual conflict.
So, When Men Behave Badly continues to follow the successful formula found in David Buss's earlier books. Buss identifies a number of sex differences that ordinary people already know about. In fact, he has already analyzed many of the sex differences mentioned in this book in his previous writings: deception, short-term and long-term mating strategies, jealousy, infidelity, mate-guarding, and so forth. There were really only a couple of behaviors I don't recall him writing about earlier. But then he produces whole new sets of data that document, scientifically, the specifics of these sex differences. He then explains why bad behaviors that tend to be uniquely male are a product of evolution and suggests what we can change to make these bad behaviors less likely to occur. Although much of the material in this book will sound familiar to someone who has read Buss's previous books and scientific publications, the focus on bad male behavior and what we can do about it certainly makes this book worth reading.
A final observation I would like to make about When Men Behave Badly is that it includes a new wrinkle not seen much in his other books but hearkens back to his roots as a personality psychologist, namely, an appeal to personality traits to explain some bad male behaviors. Specifically, Buss invokes the Dark Triad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—to argue for the role of individual difference in bad male behavior. Whereas all men, under certain conditions, are likely to exhibit the bad behaviors he describes in the book, men who score high on the Dark Triad seem to make bad behavior a consistent lifestyle, regardless of environmental conditions. Their sense of entitlement, ruthlessness, and lack of empathy, often accompanied by a shallow but convincing charm, makes them far more likely than men not high on the Dark Triad to behave badly. Their focus is on as many short-term matings without commitment as possible. Ironically and sometimes tragically, many women are attracted to these "bad boys." [One explanation for this is that any sons produced from such a union will grow up to be bad boys themselves, helping to spread the mother's genes.] This is a problem that can be addressed at both a social and individual level. Socially, we need to have ways of identifying Dark Triad individuals and prosecuting them to the fullest extent when they break laws, to get them out of circulation. On an individual level, women need to learn about the Dark Triad and resist the temptation to get involved with men who exhibit those traits.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Evolutionary biology and personality psychology: Toward a conception of human nature and individual differences. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1135–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39....
Buss, D. M. (2021). When men behave badly: The hidden roots of sexual deception, harassment, and assault. NY: Little Brown Spark.
Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 55–89.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl...
Review of David Buss's When Men Behave Badly
Background
I have followed David Buss's research from the time we were both graduate students in the late 1970s—David studied at UC Berkeley and I, at Johns Hopkins. We were in similar situations, both enrolled in graduate programs in personality psychology, but probably only because there were at that time no graduate programs in evolutionary psychology, which was our true interest. Personality psychology was probably the most hospitable home for aspiring evolutionary psychologists at that time, given that at least some personality theories assumed there was such a thing as evolved human nature. I was fortunate in that my graduate school advisor was actively developing such a theory, which he eventually named socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1982).
However, most personality psychologists in the 1970s focused more on personality measurement than theory, much less evolutionary theory. Such was the case at Berkeley, so David had little professional support for his evolutionary interests. I recall reading one of his graduate school manuscripts that he had submitted for publication, a paper in which he argued for looking at personality from an evolutionary perspective. Whoever reviewed the manuscript thoroughly trashed it. I was horrified by the reviewers' savage comments, which made me pessimistic about David's budding career as an evolutionary psychologist and about the nascent field of evolutionary psychology in general.
Fortunately, David Buss was—and still is—a remarkably tenacious psychologist. Initially marketing himself as a personality psychologist, he landed his first job at Harvard. [As a personal side note, I had interviewed for the same position right before David interviewed, and was told by the chair of the department that they were planning on offering me the position until David interviewed. Which is fine with me in retrospect. I doubt that I could have used the Harvard position as effectively as David.] Harvard was an excellent environment for an aspiring evolutionary psychologist, not because the Department of Psychology and Social Relations had evolutionary thinkers but because of strong evolutionary thinkers in other departments (e.g., E. O. Wilson in Biology and Irven DeVore in Anthropology). David persisted, and eventually the graduate school manuscript that had been so harshly criticized was published in psychology's premier professional journal, the American Psychologist (Buss, 1984).
While at Harvard, David was extremely fortunate to meet two students in the Anthropology PhD program, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides. Tooby and Cosmides, after establishing themselves at UC Santa Barbara, are credited with helping to found evolutionary psychology as a recognized scientific field. David's continued interactions with Tooby and Cosmides, as well as Donald Symons (also established at UC Santa Barbara and recognized as a founder of evolutionary psychology) helped him to develop an approach to studying human behavior from an evolutionary perspective.
David Buss's New Book: When Men Behave Badly
Although David has continued to address the nature of personality from an evolutionary perspective from time to time, he has devoted nearly all of his research energy toward understanding evolved differences in male and female psychology, and his most recent book represents the latest example of that. In reading his books and articles on that topic over the past 40 years, I have noticed a pattern. He begins with a phenomenon that is already pretty much common knowledge (or at least a common supposition) in the general public. For example, that men tend to prefer a younger mate, and women, an older mate. Or that men tend to be more interested in a woman's physical appearance than her social and financial status, while the reverse tends to be true for women. Or that men tend to prefer to have more sexual partners than women. Next, he explains how such sex differences might have evolved from a few core, undisputable differences between what men and women need to do in order to produce viable offspring, particularly differences in the amount of energy, time, and risk involved in conceiving, gestating, birthing, feeding, and rearing offspring. Finally, he assembles data from his own and others' empirical studies that provide more precise details about the phenomenon he is studying. Exactly what is the typical age difference in couples, and does that average difference vary across cultures or across different points in the life span? Exactly which female physical features attract men the most, and how important is social status to women, compared to other traits such as height, intelligence, sense of humor, thoughtfulness, and signs of commitment? Exactly how many sexual partners do women and men regard as ideal, and what factors influence how many partners one actually has?
When Men Behave Badly follows the formula described above. Buss identifies a number well-known "bad male behaviors," that is, male behaviors that interfere with women's choices and goals. These include the following: pretending to have more status or financial resources than they really have; pretending to be interested in a long-term relationship when they are only interested in a short-term sexual relationship; engaging in secret sexual affairs; being hyper-vigilant, suspicious, jealous, and controlling of their mates; pursuing women particularly vulnerable women (women who are young, inexperienced, and lacking in self-confidence); using alcohol and drugs to disarm and disable women; forcing women to have sex against their will; objectifying women by focusing only on their bodies; stalking women who are not interested in them; seeking revenge after a breakup by spreading stories and posting pictures and videos on the Internet; and physically and psychologically abusing women and threatening violence to prevent them from leaving a relationship.
Along the way, Buss does mention female versions of deception, infidelity, jealousy, and manipulation, presumably to present a more complete picture of conflicts in relationships. But the focus is on bad male behaviors, which Buss documents with research from his own lab, from other labs, from cross-cultural studies, and analogies in other species. He also sprinkles in a variety of personal anecdotes about famous people, ordinary people who made the news due to a relationship conflict, imaginary characters from movies, and people he has known personally. Obviously, a scientific account of human behavior cannot be based only on anecdotes, but the personally stories he shares are great illustrations and really bring his account to life.
How Evolutionary Psychology Can Help
Now, how does evolutionary theory add to our understanding of well-known bad male behaviors that have also been documented in detail with scientific studies? Anti-evolutionists claim that it does not, that evolutionary accounts are just-so story-telling. Even worse, some anti-evolutionists might claim that evolutionary accounts of bad male behavior somehow justify and excuse such behavior because "evolutionary" and "genetic" imply that such behaviors are inevitable. Such complaints demonstrate a poor understanding of evolved traits and evolutionary explanations, and Buss strives to correct these misunderstandings. He points out that evolved psychological traits do not manifest themselves constantly in every situation. All men do not rape women all the time. Identifying exactly the conditions under which men are most likely to deceive, have an affair, become suspicious and controlling, force women to have sex, and engage in stalking, revenge, and physical abuse—along with an evolutionary understanding of what men are trying to accomplish with these bad behaviors—can suggest to us how to change policies, laws, and the social environment, and how to educate men and women to reduce the likelihood of these bad behaviors in the future.
Personally, I favor evolutionary education as a partial antidote to the problem of bad male behavior. To use one example from Buss's book, most people figure out on their own that everyone has a "mate value" (all the things that make you desirable as a mate) and that you are most likely to successfully attract someone with the same mate value as you. That is, if you are a man whose mate value is a 6 on a scale from 1 to 10, you are much more likely to attract a woman who is a 6 than a woman with a higher mate value. But what most men probably do not know is that men tend to overestimate their mate value. A 6 might think of himself as an 8 or even a 9 and therefore pursue women who are higher on the mate value scale. When the 6 man's advances are resisted by an 8 woman, the over-confident man might feel justified in applying what is really unwarranted pressure on the 8 woman. That is, he engages in bad behavior. If all men could take a course in evolutionary and learn about mate value and how to realistically assess their own value, this might reduce the amount of inappropriate pursuit of mates.
Education can also help women to recognize when and why men are trying to control them and what kind of counter-strategies they can use to break free from such attempts to control. Men who are insecure about their mate value and do not know how to attract women with the things that women really want often resort to tactics such as threats and violence to keep their mates from leaving them. In the distant past, women usually had male relatives (brothers, father, uncles) to help protect them from this kind of control. But in modern, industrial societies, members of a family often live so far apart that members of a family cannot directly protect each other. An insecure man may attempt to increase his control over his mate by preventing her from even talking to members of her family or other friends who might help. With proper education, women can recognize such a scenario and take steps to get help from others before her mate's efforts to control her escalate to physical abuse.
Buss also suggests that women can empower themselves by reconsidering their priorities while looking for a mate. At the top of the list of valuable traits in a mate for many women is the ability of a man to provide economic resources to her and any children she might have. A man's ability to provide resources is generally linked to his social status. Unfortunately, many men who are successful at achieving status, power, and money are ruthless. They also tend to be unfaithful because there are many other women who will be attracted to their economic position. So many of our female ancestors were attracted to powerful, high-status men, that sexual selection has created a horde of status-hungry men and women who are still attracted primarily to status in modern times. But there are many other traits that contribute to a man's mate value, and a woman does have choices today about which traits to use in selecting a mate. Although she might hear the allure of status whispering in her ear, she can still focus on other traits such as kindness, reliability, and empathy that would make a man a good mate.
Of course, downplaying the ability of man to provide for her and her children will depend on whether a woman can manage without a lot of resources from her mate. This, in turn, will depend on the economic and social structure of the culture in which women live. Buss does talk about changing social structures to help reduce bad male behaviors. I agree that this is desirable, but it is more time-consuming than education, so this is more of a long-term project. Buss notes that one characteristic of societies where women suffer less physical abuse are societies such as those in the Scandinavian countries where there is greater economic equality between men and women. Women without economic means are more vulnerable to control and abuse by their mates, so economic gender parity reduces bad male behavior.
Another characteristic of societies that exacerbates the problem of bad male behavior are unequal sex ratios where the number of males is far greater than the number of females. When there are not enough women for everyone, men are more likely to engage in violence against each other as well as against women. Sadly, there has been an historical bias toward having sons rather than daughters, in in some societies girls were actually killed or left to die as babies. That is obviously bad in itself, but it also produces a sex ratio that is likely to cause problems when the boys reach adulthood and have difficulty finding a mate. A surplus of males does not help anyone except maybe warlords who send the surplus men into battles.
Whereas David Buss clearly spells out how economic parity between the sexes helps to reduce bad male behavior, he only hints at the impact of economic inequality within the male population. I would like to spell out what I think Buss is suggesting. For better or worse, women today are still more attracted to men who are rich than men who are poor. Being poor not only drastically and directly reduces a man's attractiveness to women; being poor is also associated with an inferior education (you are unlikely to attend college and take a course in evolutionary psychology), greater susceptibility to drug and alcohol addiction, involvement in crime, and a host of other factors that reduce a man's mate value. What recourse does a man in such a position have except violence against women? There will always be some economic inequality in modern societies, but the degree of such inequality has grown to obscene proportions in the United States. I am not suggesting a Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor to reduce economic inequality. I am not an economist and don't have a specific solution for increasing economic parity among men as well as between men and women. But I am saying that if we can somehow manage to reduce economic inequality both within and between sexes, money and status will become less important factors in intra- and intersexual conflict.
So, When Men Behave Badly continues to follow the successful formula found in David Buss's earlier books. Buss identifies a number of sex differences that ordinary people already know about. In fact, he has already analyzed many of the sex differences mentioned in this book in his previous writings: deception, short-term and long-term mating strategies, jealousy, infidelity, mate-guarding, and so forth. There were really only a couple of behaviors I don't recall him writing about earlier. But then he produces whole new sets of data that document, scientifically, the specifics of these sex differences. He then explains why bad behaviors that tend to be uniquely male are a product of evolution and suggests what we can change to make these bad behaviors less likely to occur. Although much of the material in this book will sound familiar to someone who has read Buss's previous books and scientific publications, the focus on bad male behavior and what we can do about it certainly makes this book worth reading.
A final observation I would like to make about When Men Behave Badly is that it includes a new wrinkle not seen much in his other books but hearkens back to his roots as a personality psychologist, namely, an appeal to personality traits to explain some bad male behaviors. Specifically, Buss invokes the Dark Triad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—to argue for the role of individual difference in bad male behavior. Whereas all men, under certain conditions, are likely to exhibit the bad behaviors he describes in the book, men who score high on the Dark Triad seem to make bad behavior a consistent lifestyle, regardless of environmental conditions. Their sense of entitlement, ruthlessness, and lack of empathy, often accompanied by a shallow but convincing charm, makes them far more likely than men not high on the Dark Triad to behave badly. Their focus is on as many short-term matings without commitment as possible. Ironically and sometimes tragically, many women are attracted to these "bad boys." [One explanation for this is that any sons produced from such a union will grow up to be bad boys themselves, helping to spread the mother's genes.] This is a problem that can be addressed at both a social and individual level. Socially, we need to have ways of identifying Dark Triad individuals and prosecuting them to the fullest extent when they break laws, to get them out of circulation. On an individual level, women need to learn about the Dark Triad and resist the temptation to get involved with men who exhibit those traits.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Evolutionary biology and personality psychology: Toward a conception of human nature and individual differences. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1135–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39....
Buss, D. M. (2021). When men behave badly: The hidden roots of sexual deception, harassment, and assault. NY: Little Brown Spark.
Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 55–89.
July 25, 2021
Infidelity, sexual harassment, sexual violence—why do men keep exhibiting sexual behaviors that are awfully undesirable, knowing full well that they appear stupid? This is a book of Darwinism in the Me Too era, framing the troubled time through the lens of sexual conflicts, intrasexual competitions, and other evolutionary psychological perspectives.
The book introduces a broad range of orthodox knowledge of evolutionary psychology on male-female dynamics. What sets it apart from other books of popular evolutionary psychology is that the author David Buss’s candid use of gender-study terms like “patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity,” which appears to reflect the author’s overarching framing of how the female needs to be protected from the often toxic male sexual behaviors.
Perhaps the project itself was inspired by the Me Too movement. In the author’s argument on rape being not an adaption as well as deference to various feminist perspectives, the author’s compassion toward females’ well-being is palpable. (The deference to social constructionists feels a bit odd to those who expect an evolutionary biologist to have felt tired of being attacked, often on the baseless ground, by them.) The author’s motivation becomes clear when he writes:
The framing might actually make this a useful reading for those, especially females, who have developed a bias against evolutionary psychology, thinking that an evolutionary psychology book like this is merely a bible for PUAs or Mein Kampf for biological essentialists. The discipline does provide a useful framework for females to avoid a variety of uncomfortable encounters and interactions with sexually obsessed males, and the author’s framing might actually help change their impression of evolutionary biology in general. This is a refreshing perspective and even as a male it is hard not to be sympathetic to the various ways that females often have to be on the receiving end of sex-induced discomforts.
That said, just because males tend to be on the offending side does not invalidate their pains of being on the other end of sexual dimorphism; most males spend their lives without ever fully being sexually satisfied, and a few do so pay a substantial price, be it being born with undesirable psychological traits and/or harsh societal punishments from a jealousy bunch and whatnot. Normative pressures might not offer any fundamental solutions to issues deeply rooted in biology like male-female dynamics.
What could be done, for example, in a society where a sex-induced elevation of violence is observed, as in China with its sex ratio significantly tilted toward males? The book does not offer any new perspective on a male-oriented issue like this—just some mention of the condition’s undesirability—and implies that males simply have to suck it up; perhaps the author thinks that males are deserving of it since it has been females who have long sucked it up under the supposed patriarchy. It would have been useful if it offered some more illumination in this regard, though, given that inflation of undesired males in the mating market likely becomes an even larger issue in coming decades, especially in free societies where a greater number of females can further cultivate their choosiness.
The book introduces a broad range of orthodox knowledge of evolutionary psychology on male-female dynamics. What sets it apart from other books of popular evolutionary psychology is that the author David Buss’s candid use of gender-study terms like “patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity,” which appears to reflect the author’s overarching framing of how the female needs to be protected from the often toxic male sexual behaviors.
Perhaps the project itself was inspired by the Me Too movement. In the author’s argument on rape being not an adaption as well as deference to various feminist perspectives, the author’s compassion toward females’ well-being is palpable. (The deference to social constructionists feels a bit odd to those who expect an evolutionary biologist to have felt tired of being attacked, often on the baseless ground, by them.) The author’s motivation becomes clear when he writes:
Having studied sexual conflict for many years before writing this book, I thought I understood the psychological damage rape victims experience. After all, I had close female friends who privately trusted me and disclosed their abusive experiences. I fancied myself as unusually empathic. Toggling between the scientific studies that reveal PTSD and depression and the moving memoirs of rape victims …, I noticed a profound shift in myself. I discovered that I too had vastly underestimated the psychological toll that sexual assault inflicts on women. Undoubtedly I still cannot fully grasp, after decades of study, the psychological toll it takes on women. Men may think they understand, but I don’t think they ever can fully. I hope that this book helps men move a little closer to bridging the gap. (p. 254)
The framing might actually make this a useful reading for those, especially females, who have developed a bias against evolutionary psychology, thinking that an evolutionary psychology book like this is merely a bible for PUAs or Mein Kampf for biological essentialists. The discipline does provide a useful framework for females to avoid a variety of uncomfortable encounters and interactions with sexually obsessed males, and the author’s framing might actually help change their impression of evolutionary biology in general. This is a refreshing perspective and even as a male it is hard not to be sympathetic to the various ways that females often have to be on the receiving end of sex-induced discomforts.
That said, just because males tend to be on the offending side does not invalidate their pains of being on the other end of sexual dimorphism; most males spend their lives without ever fully being sexually satisfied, and a few do so pay a substantial price, be it being born with undesirable psychological traits and/or harsh societal punishments from a jealousy bunch and whatnot. Normative pressures might not offer any fundamental solutions to issues deeply rooted in biology like male-female dynamics.
What could be done, for example, in a society where a sex-induced elevation of violence is observed, as in China with its sex ratio significantly tilted toward males? The book does not offer any new perspective on a male-oriented issue like this—just some mention of the condition’s undesirability—and implies that males simply have to suck it up; perhaps the author thinks that males are deserving of it since it has been females who have long sucked it up under the supposed patriarchy. It would have been useful if it offered some more illumination in this regard, though, given that inflation of undesired males in the mating market likely becomes an even larger issue in coming decades, especially in free societies where a greater number of females can further cultivate their choosiness.
June 23, 2021
Едва ли е загадка за някого, че хората, както и всички останали животни, са продукт на еволюционен процес. Процес, който в продължение на милиони години е оформял телата и поведението ни, за да можем да оцелеем в саваните на африка. Нито е загадка, че също така носим в телата и мозъците си наследството на на още стотици милиони години еволюция на по-низшите организми, от които сме произлезли.
Това, разбира се, е загадка за по-голямата част от психолозите. Звучи тъпо, но наистина те не учат нищо за еволюцията и за това как е произлязъл човека. Те учат механизмите на психиката ни, но не учат защо ги имаме и защо ги е създала природата. Затова класическата психология обяснява неща като насилие, агресия, ревност просто като патология - един вид тия емоции щом са нежелани, значи са по някакъв начин ненормални и трябва да ги третираме като болест, която да лекуваме.
Да, ама те не са ненормални, а са природно заложени във всички хора. В цивилизованото общество се стараем да ги потискаме в себе си, за да можем да живеем цивилизовано. По същия начин потискаме в себе си желанието да ядем сладолед по цял ден. Тва не значи, че желанието за сладолед е болест.
Дейвид Бъс отдавна се занимава с еволюционния клон на психологията, който се опитва да внесе някакъв здрав разум и разбиране за човешката природа в тая дисциплина. След като изследва защо жените правят секс, сега се е захванал да обясни защо мъжете са по-склонни да бият и изнасилват. Което, пак казвам, не е новина за никой, който отглежда под шапката си нещо повече от гнездо на гугутки, но явно повечето психолози са на това ниво...
Това, разбира се, е загадка за по-голямата част от психолозите. Звучи тъпо, но наистина те не учат нищо за еволюцията и за това как е произлязъл човека. Те учат механизмите на психиката ни, но не учат защо ги имаме и защо ги е създала природата. Затова класическата психология обяснява неща като насилие, агресия, ревност просто като патология - един вид тия емоции щом са нежелани, значи са по някакъв начин ненормални и трябва да ги третираме като болест, която да лекуваме.
Да, ама те не са ненормални, а са природно заложени във всички хора. В цивилизованото общество се стараем да ги потискаме в себе си, за да можем да живеем цивилизовано. По същия начин потискаме в себе си желанието да ядем сладолед по цял ден. Тва не значи, че желанието за сладолед е болест.
Дейвид Бъс отдавна се занимава с еволюционния клон на психологията, който се опитва да внесе някакъв здрав разум и разбиране за човешката природа в тая дисциплина. След като изследва защо жените правят секс, сега се е захванал да обясни защо мъжете са по-склонни да бият и изнасилват. Което, пак казвам, не е новина за никой, който отглежда под шапката си нещо повече от гнездо на гугутки, но явно повечето психолози са на това ниво...
November 14, 2022
As someone with a formal education in cognitive science, my sympathies tend to lie with biological accounts of human mating behavior, but proponents of biological accounts of human mating behavior, though correct about the details, can lack when it comes to the compassion and ethical chops necessary to discuss some of the relevant issues. On the other hand, while I admire the ethical and philosophical intent of feminist accounts of human mating behavior, the lack of empirical evidence and scientific validity bother me. This book accomplishes the miraculous feat of combining an uncompromising evolutionary account of human sexual behavior, with the compassion and ethical prowess that the topic requires, while drawing on evolutionary biology, psychology and even intersectionality and feminist philosophy. David M. Buss harnesses the unparalleled explanatory power of the evolutionary lens, to shine a bright light on the worst of human behavior, and the result is both illuminating and hopeful.
March 1, 2022
كتاب جيد، يساعدنا على فهم أسباب الصراع بين الرجال و النساء، صادق و مبني على دراسات علمية دقيقه، قد يقلل حدة الخلاف بين الرجال و النساء. أحببت بعض الافكار الثورية و الجديدة التي تطرق لها الكتاب رغم أنها قليلة.
July 17, 2024
This book definitely covers very important topics and issues that are often overlooked when talking about sexual harassment deception and assault. It was interesting to see the hypothesis of how evolution could possibly have led to the acts of sexual deception, harassment and assault, but it is just hypothesis and he makes a lot of fair points I just can’t fully get with the fact that people act a certain way due to a certain evolutionary process that worked for our ancestors. I can see how these hypothesis may have been applicable in less modern times and how it can translate to the present as well but because where in a day in age where we don’t really need to “survive” I just don’t fully understand how evolution can take precedent over morals and ethics that have become the norm now. I guess it begs the question of nature vs nurture.
Again I’ve been trying to read more books to open up my perspective on things but this just seems to me as a woman who has dealt with these topics come off as redundant. The author points out that he as a man will never fully understand the impact of how sexual assault effects someone (but points out a why it may have been so impactful for our early ancestors). I as always, think this book is meant more for groups of people who are more ignorant on such topics and this includes both men and women but mostly men. (Sorry y’all I swear I’m not a misandrists). But as always I’ll always enjoy reading something that could potentially be eye opening.
Again I’ve been trying to read more books to open up my perspective on things but this just seems to me as a woman who has dealt with these topics come off as redundant. The author points out that he as a man will never fully understand the impact of how sexual assault effects someone (but points out a why it may have been so impactful for our early ancestors). I as always, think this book is meant more for groups of people who are more ignorant on such topics and this includes both men and women but mostly men. (Sorry y’all I swear I’m not a misandrists). But as always I’ll always enjoy reading something that could potentially be eye opening.
July 2, 2024
Muszę przyznać, że ciężko mi się czytało tą książkę i tak nie wiem co mam o niej powiedzieć. Uświadomiła mi , że tym bardziej nie chce być seksuologiem sądowym. Ogólnie jeśli ktoś chce ją przeczytać to niech się szykuje na spis badań, które nie do końca dają odpowiedzi. 4/5 bo nie jestem fanką psychologii ewolucyjnej. Sorry za tak nie złożona recenzje, ale nie wiem serio co napisać
July 4, 2021
This book tries to explain sexual conflict between men and women through an evolutionary perspective. I generally look at evolutionary psychology with scepticism. Though it may sound logical, it is highly prone to the narrative fallacy . That being said, I think the author takes a balanced and tempered approach. I think evolutionary psychology has useful things to say on this topic as gender differences have an evolutionary/genetic basis and sexual activity is largely driven by instincts.
The first part of the book shows the empirical basis for claims that:
Men and women are generally different
Their sexual and romantic incentives are different
Their mating strategies are different
These differences are generally repeated throughout different cultures and time periods.
You probably know this intuitively, but it prepares you for annoying conversations with facetious people that go something like “You think men and women are different!? Show me the scientific studies….” Well, here they are. I Audiobooked this but I might go ahead and get the paperback so that I can cite it in such situations.
Once these differences are established, the book moves onto exploring how men and women reach (or fail to reach) agreements when their motivations/incentives are not perfectly aligned. This includes, bargaining, deception, cheating and violence.
One of the key premises that the book hinges it’s arguments on is mating market value. Essentially, your rating out of 10 as determined by the supply and demand of the mating market. An 8/10 will find more potential partners than a 6/10. Not only will it be more, but more attractive potential partners and more invested potential partners. Discrepancies in partners' market value can often lead to lower levels of investment from the more attractive partner. Discrepancies in investment are a key driver of sexual conflict. More attractive partners are more likely to cheat or leave the less attractive partner. This discrepancy correlates with jealousy, partner guarding and violence. The book cites numerous studies to support this. It seems obvious once you know it but an enormous amount of "people behaving badly" is driven by feelings of insecurity, inadequacy and desperation.
The book also makes a key distinction between long term and short term mating. Conceiving a child involves far more risk and investment for a woman than a man. Throughout our species history, if a woman did not have the support of the father, her and the child’s life become very difficult. As such, women’s preferences skew towards longer term partnering. Women may choose a less attractive man if he shows more investment and trustworthiness. This creates an incentive for men to be trustworthy or at least appear so. As evolution does not put the same pressure on men to partner with each woman long term, men may deceive women and conceive without investing. Deception is not only a men’s issue though as a woman can benefit from being the life partner of a low market value man while actually having the child of a high market value man. These opportunities lead to an arms race between the sexes fostering deception techniques, deception detection techniques, detection avoidance techniques, deception counters and so on…
This evolutionary game playing underlies an enormous amount of our day to day lives without us necessarily knowing it. It can also help us understand why our society has developed the norms and structures that it has. It also has implications from sexual based crime, violence, abuse, and harassment. At points, the author strays uncomfortably close to the lines of victim blaming. He justifies it however by saying that deepening our understanding of why these things happen improves our ability to find ways to prevent them. This is true but for several readers (especially women) these considerations may be too triggering to consider.
Overall, the book provides a convincing case of how evolution and gender differences drive sexual conflict. It opens your eyes to the underlying reasons for why the world is the way it is. While it may be eye opening many people would find it unpalatable to look at our ugly natures in such a rationalised way.
The first part of the book shows the empirical basis for claims that:
Men and women are generally different
Their sexual and romantic incentives are different
Their mating strategies are different
These differences are generally repeated throughout different cultures and time periods.
You probably know this intuitively, but it prepares you for annoying conversations with facetious people that go something like “You think men and women are different!? Show me the scientific studies….” Well, here they are. I Audiobooked this but I might go ahead and get the paperback so that I can cite it in such situations.
Once these differences are established, the book moves onto exploring how men and women reach (or fail to reach) agreements when their motivations/incentives are not perfectly aligned. This includes, bargaining, deception, cheating and violence.
One of the key premises that the book hinges it’s arguments on is mating market value. Essentially, your rating out of 10 as determined by the supply and demand of the mating market. An 8/10 will find more potential partners than a 6/10. Not only will it be more, but more attractive potential partners and more invested potential partners. Discrepancies in partners' market value can often lead to lower levels of investment from the more attractive partner. Discrepancies in investment are a key driver of sexual conflict. More attractive partners are more likely to cheat or leave the less attractive partner. This discrepancy correlates with jealousy, partner guarding and violence. The book cites numerous studies to support this. It seems obvious once you know it but an enormous amount of "people behaving badly" is driven by feelings of insecurity, inadequacy and desperation.
The book also makes a key distinction between long term and short term mating. Conceiving a child involves far more risk and investment for a woman than a man. Throughout our species history, if a woman did not have the support of the father, her and the child’s life become very difficult. As such, women’s preferences skew towards longer term partnering. Women may choose a less attractive man if he shows more investment and trustworthiness. This creates an incentive for men to be trustworthy or at least appear so. As evolution does not put the same pressure on men to partner with each woman long term, men may deceive women and conceive without investing. Deception is not only a men’s issue though as a woman can benefit from being the life partner of a low market value man while actually having the child of a high market value man. These opportunities lead to an arms race between the sexes fostering deception techniques, deception detection techniques, detection avoidance techniques, deception counters and so on…
This evolutionary game playing underlies an enormous amount of our day to day lives without us necessarily knowing it. It can also help us understand why our society has developed the norms and structures that it has. It also has implications from sexual based crime, violence, abuse, and harassment. At points, the author strays uncomfortably close to the lines of victim blaming. He justifies it however by saying that deepening our understanding of why these things happen improves our ability to find ways to prevent them. This is true but for several readers (especially women) these considerations may be too triggering to consider.
Overall, the book provides a convincing case of how evolution and gender differences drive sexual conflict. It opens your eyes to the underlying reasons for why the world is the way it is. While it may be eye opening many people would find it unpalatable to look at our ugly natures in such a rationalised way.
November 1, 2021
I read this book for a class and learned that in general, people suck sometimes. Its main focus was on identifying the evolutionary roots of sexual infidelity/deception/etc, but I wish David Buss would have explained more thoroughly some strategies to avoid these things rather than just stopping at the explanation of why they happen. I found it difficult to be fully engaged while reading this book. After we finished reading it, our class got the opportunity to talk with David Buss via a video call, and it was interesting to hear his responses to our questions and concerns.
July 28, 2021
Summary: A discussion of sexual violence, deception, harassment and abuse, largely on the part of men, grounded in evolutionary sexual conflict theory that helps explain why so many relationships between men and women go bad.
Harassment. Intimate partner violence. Controlling behavior. Stalking. Sexual coercion and rape. We hear reports in our daily news of these sexual offenses, and indeed, some version of these offenses occur in every culture. And in most cases, the perpetrators are men. As a male, this is troubling. Are we all rapists, as Marilyn French has asserted? Certainly many women are wary of all men. Beyond this lies the question of how we explain the universality of sexual oppression and violence.
In When Men Behave Badly, psychologist David M. Buss proposes that sexual conflict theory provides an explanation for these behaviors. In brief, sexual conflict theory roots these behaviors in our evolutionary struggles to reproduce, in which males and females have conflicting strategies for passing along our germ lines. Optimal strategies for men involve multiple matings. For women, the optimal strategy is a long term relationship with a mate. Each gender has developed strategies to counter the other and hence conflict that can turn oppressive, manipulative and violent. These traits are deeply engrained in us. Yet these do not determine or warrant men behaving badly. And not all men do.
It is a battle of the sexes, and largely, a battle over the bodies of women. Buss begins by showing how this works out in the mating market. Buss explores how man assess sexual exploitability, how each gender practices deception and how men and women think differently about what is desirable. It is here that Buss introduces the Dark Triad of traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Men with this triad are much more prone to abuse. Weirdly, perhaps, they are attractive to many women, and there may be evolutionary reasons for this, although they make for terrible long-term relationships. He looks at conflict within mateships–backup mates, and affairs and mate retention through sexual withdrawal and bestowal.
Buss then gets into relationship conflict and the role of jealousy that may be the source of mate guarding, intimate partner violence, stalking and partner rape. All of these may be seen as a form of protectiveness of their investment and guarding partners from other male poachers. Buss goes into the ways perpetrators hijack their victim’s psychology, making it less likely that they will leave. When partners do break up, it may lead to stalking and revenge, including revenge porn.
Buss examines the claim that all men are rapists. Sadly, many men do fantasize about forced sex. Many fewer will act on it. Buss looks at why men who rape do so. Narcissism and lack of empathy, hostility toward women, and disposition to short-term relationships all contribute to a proneness to rape. He also discusses how women defend against sexual coercion, how they avoid assault or escape from it. There is a blind spot. Women most fear stranger rape when in fact most rapes are from men with whom they are acquainted.
The final chapter discusses “minding the sex gap.” He observes some of the misperceptions of desirability and what is attractive (and disgusting) that men do well to understand, the importance of closing legal gaps in terms of harassment and sex crimes, and changing the norms around patriarchy. Learning to recognize the Dark Triad traits mentioned earlier and to protect oneself from them is important.
I found this a bleak book. It is a grim “butchers’ bill” of all the ways men transgress against women, supposedly for some evolutionary reproductive advantage. The back and forth of strategies and counter-strategies felt to me a reduction of relationships between men and women to power games cloaked as sexual transactions. While I think the author would deny it, especially in terms of legal culpability, there is a strong element of evolutionary determinism that underlies the explanations of behavior. It seems the remedy is less self-control as it is evolutionary counter-measures and social and legal controls. I will grant that sexual conflict theory does offer a compelling explanation for the bad behavior of men across cultures. But it reduces human sexuality and all the mating behavior around it to reproductive instincts.
While reproduction is a big part of sexuality for humans as well as animals, this seems an inadequate account of the many beautiful, though always flawed, relationships between men and women that endure long past reproduction, and for the school of character that is marriage, forging mutually sacrificial love, shared and complimentary interests, and generative bonds that not only create families but enrich communities. Buss explains the ways men and women go wrong, and perhaps this is what he most sees. I hope perhaps someday he will have occasion to write about “when men behave well.” I suspect it is to this he aspires, and there are many others I know who have been models of listening to the “better angels of their natures.” Although less noticed, I think asking why this is so is equally worth careful study.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
Harassment. Intimate partner violence. Controlling behavior. Stalking. Sexual coercion and rape. We hear reports in our daily news of these sexual offenses, and indeed, some version of these offenses occur in every culture. And in most cases, the perpetrators are men. As a male, this is troubling. Are we all rapists, as Marilyn French has asserted? Certainly many women are wary of all men. Beyond this lies the question of how we explain the universality of sexual oppression and violence.
In When Men Behave Badly, psychologist David M. Buss proposes that sexual conflict theory provides an explanation for these behaviors. In brief, sexual conflict theory roots these behaviors in our evolutionary struggles to reproduce, in which males and females have conflicting strategies for passing along our germ lines. Optimal strategies for men involve multiple matings. For women, the optimal strategy is a long term relationship with a mate. Each gender has developed strategies to counter the other and hence conflict that can turn oppressive, manipulative and violent. These traits are deeply engrained in us. Yet these do not determine or warrant men behaving badly. And not all men do.
It is a battle of the sexes, and largely, a battle over the bodies of women. Buss begins by showing how this works out in the mating market. Buss explores how man assess sexual exploitability, how each gender practices deception and how men and women think differently about what is desirable. It is here that Buss introduces the Dark Triad of traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Men with this triad are much more prone to abuse. Weirdly, perhaps, they are attractive to many women, and there may be evolutionary reasons for this, although they make for terrible long-term relationships. He looks at conflict within mateships–backup mates, and affairs and mate retention through sexual withdrawal and bestowal.
Buss then gets into relationship conflict and the role of jealousy that may be the source of mate guarding, intimate partner violence, stalking and partner rape. All of these may be seen as a form of protectiveness of their investment and guarding partners from other male poachers. Buss goes into the ways perpetrators hijack their victim’s psychology, making it less likely that they will leave. When partners do break up, it may lead to stalking and revenge, including revenge porn.
Buss examines the claim that all men are rapists. Sadly, many men do fantasize about forced sex. Many fewer will act on it. Buss looks at why men who rape do so. Narcissism and lack of empathy, hostility toward women, and disposition to short-term relationships all contribute to a proneness to rape. He also discusses how women defend against sexual coercion, how they avoid assault or escape from it. There is a blind spot. Women most fear stranger rape when in fact most rapes are from men with whom they are acquainted.
The final chapter discusses “minding the sex gap.” He observes some of the misperceptions of desirability and what is attractive (and disgusting) that men do well to understand, the importance of closing legal gaps in terms of harassment and sex crimes, and changing the norms around patriarchy. Learning to recognize the Dark Triad traits mentioned earlier and to protect oneself from them is important.
I found this a bleak book. It is a grim “butchers’ bill” of all the ways men transgress against women, supposedly for some evolutionary reproductive advantage. The back and forth of strategies and counter-strategies felt to me a reduction of relationships between men and women to power games cloaked as sexual transactions. While I think the author would deny it, especially in terms of legal culpability, there is a strong element of evolutionary determinism that underlies the explanations of behavior. It seems the remedy is less self-control as it is evolutionary counter-measures and social and legal controls. I will grant that sexual conflict theory does offer a compelling explanation for the bad behavior of men across cultures. But it reduces human sexuality and all the mating behavior around it to reproductive instincts.
While reproduction is a big part of sexuality for humans as well as animals, this seems an inadequate account of the many beautiful, though always flawed, relationships between men and women that endure long past reproduction, and for the school of character that is marriage, forging mutually sacrificial love, shared and complimentary interests, and generative bonds that not only create families but enrich communities. Buss explains the ways men and women go wrong, and perhaps this is what he most sees. I hope perhaps someday he will have occasion to write about “when men behave well.” I suspect it is to this he aspires, and there are many others I know who have been models of listening to the “better angels of their natures.” Although less noticed, I think asking why this is so is equally worth careful study.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
October 24, 2021
An excellent book which gives detailed insight into the sexual mating world. David Buss has continued his legacy of leading with evidence based ideas. For example, this book provides tremendous insight into why sexual violence occurs. This book explains so many things about mating, sexual coercion, deception, breakups, IPV. All these are relevant topics. I wish this book was taught in schools!
July 18, 2021
The most important and insightful book I have read this year.
May 18, 2023
I heard David Buss speaking on Joe Rogan and have a deep affinity with Evolutionary Psychology as a tool for understanding why people are the way they are, most specifically, why I am the way I am. David Buss is held as one of the world experts in Evolutionary Psychology and this is his most recent book.
I always find reading Evolutionary Psychology troubling, as it pulls no punches in explaining the shadow of our behaviour and the good evolutionary reason for it. This book was no different as it attempts to explain the dark side of men’s mating strategies. Buss showed studies that around one in three men will rape a women ‘if they can get away with it’. Men highest in what has become known as the Dark Triad – Psychopathy, Narcissism, and Machiavellianism – are the most likely to rape….. and also Men highest in these traits are often most attractive to young women (the most likely to be fertile). Bill Hicks sang it “Chicks Dig Jerks”. Buss attempts to explain why this might be.
People high in the Dark Triad appear to have, at least initial, success in climbing social hierarchies. In time they often get found out, but by then they have passed on their genes and are seeking their next target. One of Buss’s solutions echoed Warren Farrell was that women could change this with their mating choices, and choose to be attracted to men higher in the Light Triad (Kantianism, Humanism, and Faith in Humanity). How rational!!! Choose who you are attracted too. This faith in rationalism defies what I have come to believe, and even contradicts what Buss preaches. I doubt women will change their mating choices anytime soon to make nice guys more attractive. That would be too rational.
If the precepts of evolutionary psychology are true (which I believe they are), we have evolved not to be rational, but to survive. I use the example from my experience that when I am out for a walk and I see some movement in front of me, I always think SNAKE. I am almost always wrong. Sometime it is leaves, sometimes a stick, lizards, but rarely an actual snake. A rational person would be right as often as they are wrong. The 50% of the time they are wrong, they risk being dead. I am wrong biased against snakes 99% of the time. The survival cost of being wrong is almost no cost when biased this way. The advantage of being right and displaying caution gives me a survival advantage over my rational brother.
If 33% of men will rape ‘if they can get away with it’, it makes evolutionary sense for a woman to assume 100% of men are potential rapists given the significant psychological and physical cost of being raped. A good basis for stranger danger message to our daughters. The problem is that most rapes and sexual assaults occur by someone known to the person. Men high in that dark triad appear to be skilful in concealing their motives for sexual violence so they can ‘get away with it’.
Buss also discusses the game theory that underlies the choices people make on the mating market when people have mismatched mate values. It does a lot to explain jealousy and the motivation to conceal sexual activity. People of both sex are likely (even at a subconscious level) nurture reserve mates, just in case. This desire explains a lot of our difficulties in remaining pair bonded. This work showed a lot of the mismatched motivations and assumptions that each gender makes, that will lead to conflict and misunderstandings between the sexes for many generations to come. The Mating Market is messy. It is hard to legislate moral behaviour.
I was reading this in conjunction with Genesis of the Bible, and I was struck at how much these two books overlapped. Their is a lot of the truths of Evolutionary Psychology about mate selection within the metaphors of the Bible. Hell have no fury like a person sexually deceived by another, and we do it all the time to each other.
Just as Women should be cautious in their social lives about who they let in. Men should be cautious in their occupational lives, given the change of laws to make work places safer for women and transferring the burden of risk onto men. Men now suffer more of the reputational damage that can occur with a misunderstanding (or malevolent act), that women use bare. Men should assume that all women can and will make accusations about them. Men should be aware of leaving no room (or risk) for misunderstanding. I like the Mike Pense rule of “never be alone with a woman who is not your wife”. Given the survival bias in psychology people are not great at telling the difference between an awkward comment or action that not motivated by malicious intent and one with malevolent intent. Men, don’t try and be funny at work either. I suspect men and women will be pushed back into the same sex spaces that denoted the Victorian era.
People high in the dark triad are more skilful in hiding their intentions (both male and female). The drive for sex is of the limbic system, not the frontal cortex. People have been using sex, or the promise of it, as an evolutionary strategy to promote their genes since the beginning of history. We have evolved to be deceptive about our sexual intentions, even to our rational selves.
I always find reading Evolutionary Psychology troubling, as it pulls no punches in explaining the shadow of our behaviour and the good evolutionary reason for it. This book was no different as it attempts to explain the dark side of men’s mating strategies. Buss showed studies that around one in three men will rape a women ‘if they can get away with it’. Men highest in what has become known as the Dark Triad – Psychopathy, Narcissism, and Machiavellianism – are the most likely to rape….. and also Men highest in these traits are often most attractive to young women (the most likely to be fertile). Bill Hicks sang it “Chicks Dig Jerks”. Buss attempts to explain why this might be.
People high in the Dark Triad appear to have, at least initial, success in climbing social hierarchies. In time they often get found out, but by then they have passed on their genes and are seeking their next target. One of Buss’s solutions echoed Warren Farrell was that women could change this with their mating choices, and choose to be attracted to men higher in the Light Triad (Kantianism, Humanism, and Faith in Humanity). How rational!!! Choose who you are attracted too. This faith in rationalism defies what I have come to believe, and even contradicts what Buss preaches. I doubt women will change their mating choices anytime soon to make nice guys more attractive. That would be too rational.
If the precepts of evolutionary psychology are true (which I believe they are), we have evolved not to be rational, but to survive. I use the example from my experience that when I am out for a walk and I see some movement in front of me, I always think SNAKE. I am almost always wrong. Sometime it is leaves, sometimes a stick, lizards, but rarely an actual snake. A rational person would be right as often as they are wrong. The 50% of the time they are wrong, they risk being dead. I am wrong biased against snakes 99% of the time. The survival cost of being wrong is almost no cost when biased this way. The advantage of being right and displaying caution gives me a survival advantage over my rational brother.
If 33% of men will rape ‘if they can get away with it’, it makes evolutionary sense for a woman to assume 100% of men are potential rapists given the significant psychological and physical cost of being raped. A good basis for stranger danger message to our daughters. The problem is that most rapes and sexual assaults occur by someone known to the person. Men high in that dark triad appear to be skilful in concealing their motives for sexual violence so they can ‘get away with it’.
Buss also discusses the game theory that underlies the choices people make on the mating market when people have mismatched mate values. It does a lot to explain jealousy and the motivation to conceal sexual activity. People of both sex are likely (even at a subconscious level) nurture reserve mates, just in case. This desire explains a lot of our difficulties in remaining pair bonded. This work showed a lot of the mismatched motivations and assumptions that each gender makes, that will lead to conflict and misunderstandings between the sexes for many generations to come. The Mating Market is messy. It is hard to legislate moral behaviour.
I was reading this in conjunction with Genesis of the Bible, and I was struck at how much these two books overlapped. Their is a lot of the truths of Evolutionary Psychology about mate selection within the metaphors of the Bible. Hell have no fury like a person sexually deceived by another, and we do it all the time to each other.
Just as Women should be cautious in their social lives about who they let in. Men should be cautious in their occupational lives, given the change of laws to make work places safer for women and transferring the burden of risk onto men. Men now suffer more of the reputational damage that can occur with a misunderstanding (or malevolent act), that women use bare. Men should assume that all women can and will make accusations about them. Men should be aware of leaving no room (or risk) for misunderstanding. I like the Mike Pense rule of “never be alone with a woman who is not your wife”. Given the survival bias in psychology people are not great at telling the difference between an awkward comment or action that not motivated by malicious intent and one with malevolent intent. Men, don’t try and be funny at work either. I suspect men and women will be pushed back into the same sex spaces that denoted the Victorian era.
People high in the dark triad are more skilful in hiding their intentions (both male and female). The drive for sex is of the limbic system, not the frontal cortex. People have been using sex, or the promise of it, as an evolutionary strategy to promote their genes since the beginning of history. We have evolved to be deceptive about our sexual intentions, even to our rational selves.
February 10, 2024
Rarely I come across a book that introduces so many new concepts, that I haven't encountered before, in a well articulated manner. I went through it two times in a row. It is a fascinating work on human mating behavior, exploring the dynamics formed based on the asymmetry of investment costs for both sexes in procreation.
To extract even more value from the book, I would suggest reading 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins first and give yourself some time to allow the ideas to sink in. This would provide a broader context to the current book. I see this book as a natural progression along the Darwin-Dawkins axis. We cannot ignore the simple fact that evolution optimizes for survival and reproduction, not happiness.
This book explores difficult ideas that might make you think differently. If you're religious or sensitive, some parts might be surprising or even upsetting. Come with an open mind and be ready to consider new perspectives.
I'll outline some concepts and takeaways I've gathered for myself, in no particular order. Each is a big topic, worth exploring further.
The Dark Triad
A term describing three negative personality traits: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Individuals with high levels of these traits may be more likely to engage in antisocial or harmful behavior.
Dual Mating Strategy
Some women seek both "good genes" from short-term partners and stable resources from long-term partners at the same time, potentially due to conflicting evolutionary pressures on offspring health and survival.
Backup Mating Strategy
Keeping potential romantic partners on the sidelines, like options B or C, in case their current relationship fails. This can provide security and reduce fear of being alone, but can also be emotionally risky and harmful to existing relationships.
Mate Poaching
When someone knowingly pursues a person in a committed relationship, aiming to steal them as a partner. This act can bring emotional distress to all involved and often leads to unstable relationships.
Monkey Branching
An individual starts a new relationship before ending their current one. Like a monkey swinging from branch to branch, reluctant to let go of one until it firmly grabs onto another, leaving both partners dangling in uncertainty and causing emotional chaos.
Gaslighting
A form of emotional abuse where someone manipulates you into questioning your own sanity and reality, making you doubt your memories, perceptions, and judgment. This manipulative behavior aims to give the abuser power and control over you.
Sexual Overperception Bias
The tendency, largely among males, to overestimate someone else's romantic or sexual interest, often misinterpreting friendly cues as flirtation. This could be due to evolutionary pressures leading men to avoid missing potential mating opportunities, even at the risk of misreading intentions.
Stalking
Unwanted pattern of attention or contact that induces fear or distress. This can encompass physically following, sending unwanted messages, monitoring online activity, leaving unwanted gifts, or threatening behavior, and can severely impact a person's safety and well-being.
Ghosting
The tactic of abruptly disappearing from someone's life without explanation, like a ghost. This can happen in romantic relationships, friendships, or even work settings, leaving the other person feeling confused and hurt.
To extract even more value from the book, I would suggest reading 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins first and give yourself some time to allow the ideas to sink in. This would provide a broader context to the current book. I see this book as a natural progression along the Darwin-Dawkins axis. We cannot ignore the simple fact that evolution optimizes for survival and reproduction, not happiness.
This book explores difficult ideas that might make you think differently. If you're religious or sensitive, some parts might be surprising or even upsetting. Come with an open mind and be ready to consider new perspectives.
I'll outline some concepts and takeaways I've gathered for myself, in no particular order. Each is a big topic, worth exploring further.
The Dark Triad
A term describing three negative personality traits: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Individuals with high levels of these traits may be more likely to engage in antisocial or harmful behavior.
Dual Mating Strategy
Some women seek both "good genes" from short-term partners and stable resources from long-term partners at the same time, potentially due to conflicting evolutionary pressures on offspring health and survival.
Backup Mating Strategy
Keeping potential romantic partners on the sidelines, like options B or C, in case their current relationship fails. This can provide security and reduce fear of being alone, but can also be emotionally risky and harmful to existing relationships.
Mate Poaching
When someone knowingly pursues a person in a committed relationship, aiming to steal them as a partner. This act can bring emotional distress to all involved and often leads to unstable relationships.
Monkey Branching
An individual starts a new relationship before ending their current one. Like a monkey swinging from branch to branch, reluctant to let go of one until it firmly grabs onto another, leaving both partners dangling in uncertainty and causing emotional chaos.
Gaslighting
A form of emotional abuse where someone manipulates you into questioning your own sanity and reality, making you doubt your memories, perceptions, and judgment. This manipulative behavior aims to give the abuser power and control over you.
Sexual Overperception Bias
The tendency, largely among males, to overestimate someone else's romantic or sexual interest, often misinterpreting friendly cues as flirtation. This could be due to evolutionary pressures leading men to avoid missing potential mating opportunities, even at the risk of misreading intentions.
Stalking
Unwanted pattern of attention or contact that induces fear or distress. This can encompass physically following, sending unwanted messages, monitoring online activity, leaving unwanted gifts, or threatening behavior, and can severely impact a person's safety and well-being.
Ghosting
The tactic of abruptly disappearing from someone's life without explanation, like a ghost. This can happen in romantic relationships, friendships, or even work settings, leaving the other person feeling confused and hurt.
October 10, 2021
Op 19 oktober (2021) opent het filosofiefestival 'NACHT VAN DE VRIJDENKER'* met een online event, met o.a. professor David M. Buss.
Zijn recentste boek "When Men Behave Badly", las ik in het kader van mijn cursus onwikkelingspsychologie.
Dat het ongemakkelijke, confronterende en ontnuchterende lectuur is zal mij niet weerhouden het boek aan de jeugd rondom mij te lezen te geven. Het analyseren en begrijpen van de nature van conflict in de relaties tussen mensen, van seksueel wangedrag en agressie is immers primordiaal in de toekomstige preventie ervan.
Elkeen van ons kan wel iets aan met de fascinerende inzichten die professor Buss aanbrengt - indien er interesse is om het eigen denken en handelen en dat van anderen correcter te kunnen plaatsen, uiteraard.
“Psychologieprofessor David Buss wordt algemeen beschouwd als de meest vooraanstaande evolutionaire psycholoog, zelfs als een van de grondleggers van de hele discipline. Buss is verbonden aan de Universiteit van Texas, en werkte voordien aan de universiteiten van Michigan en Harvard. Hij publiceerde met Evolutionary Psychology: the new science of the mind hét standaardwerk over evolutionaire psychologie. In zijn onderzoek en overige boeken richt hij zich op paringsstrategieën, conflicten tussen de seksen, sekseverschillen, vrouwelijke seksualiteit en lust. Hij schreef boeken voor het brede publiek over onder meer jaloezie en moord. In zijn recentste werk ‘When Men Behave Badly’ gaat hij in op seksueel geweld.
Hij ontwikkelt in dat boek een nieuwe, eengemaakte theorie over seksueel conflict en hoe zich die conflicten vertalen in ons dagelijks leven: op café, in de slaapkamer en op het werk.”
(*tickets op de website van De Vooruit)
Zijn recentste boek "When Men Behave Badly", las ik in het kader van mijn cursus onwikkelingspsychologie.
Dat het ongemakkelijke, confronterende en ontnuchterende lectuur is zal mij niet weerhouden het boek aan de jeugd rondom mij te lezen te geven. Het analyseren en begrijpen van de nature van conflict in de relaties tussen mensen, van seksueel wangedrag en agressie is immers primordiaal in de toekomstige preventie ervan.
Elkeen van ons kan wel iets aan met de fascinerende inzichten die professor Buss aanbrengt - indien er interesse is om het eigen denken en handelen en dat van anderen correcter te kunnen plaatsen, uiteraard.
“Psychologieprofessor David Buss wordt algemeen beschouwd als de meest vooraanstaande evolutionaire psycholoog, zelfs als een van de grondleggers van de hele discipline. Buss is verbonden aan de Universiteit van Texas, en werkte voordien aan de universiteiten van Michigan en Harvard. Hij publiceerde met Evolutionary Psychology: the new science of the mind hét standaardwerk over evolutionaire psychologie. In zijn onderzoek en overige boeken richt hij zich op paringsstrategieën, conflicten tussen de seksen, sekseverschillen, vrouwelijke seksualiteit en lust. Hij schreef boeken voor het brede publiek over onder meer jaloezie en moord. In zijn recentste werk ‘When Men Behave Badly’ gaat hij in op seksueel geweld.
Hij ontwikkelt in dat boek een nieuwe, eengemaakte theorie over seksueel conflict en hoe zich die conflicten vertalen in ons dagelijks leven: op café, in de slaapkamer en op het werk.”
(*tickets op de website van De Vooruit)
November 26, 2021
"When Men Behave Badly: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment, and Assault" на еволюционния психолог Дейвид Бъс несъмнено е книга, която всеки млад човек трябва да прочете. Авторът представя огромните разлики в сексуалното поведение на половете, проблемите във взаимоотношенията им и еволюционните причини зад всичко това. От книгата ще научите:
- стратегиите, които мъжете и жените прилагат за намиране на сексуален партньор и огромната им разлика;
- от какво зависи стойността на мъжете на "сексуалния пазар";
- от какво зависи стойността на жените на "сексуалния пазар";
- причините за изневяра за двата пола;
- стратегиите за задържане на партньорите, прилагани от двата пола;
- причините за насилието над жени и как да ги предпазим;
Изложени са данни от множество мащабни проучвания по всяка една от тези теми, които със сигурност няма да се харесат на повечето консервативни хора. Книгата обръща специално внимание на трудностите, които жените по света изпитват в ежедневието си (у дома, на работното място, в градския транспорт и т.н.), дължащи се на неразбирането на особеностите на сексуалния пазар от страна и на двата пола и как това незнание често води до токсични връзки и насилие.
- стратегиите, които мъжете и жените прилагат за намиране на сексуален партньор и огромната им разлика;
- от какво зависи стойността на мъжете на "сексуалния пазар";
- от какво зависи стойността на жените на "сексуалния пазар";
- причините за изневяра за двата пола;
- стратегиите за задържане на партньорите, прилагани от двата пола;
- причините за насилието над жени и как да ги предпазим;
Изложени са данни от множество мащабни проучвания по всяка една от тези теми, които със сигурност няма да се харесат на повечето консервативни хора. Книгата обръща специално внимание на трудностите, които жените по света изпитват в ежедневието си (у дома, на работното място, в градския транспорт и т.н.), дължащи се на неразбирането на особеностите на сексуалния пазар от страна и на двата пола и как това незнание често води до токсични връзки и насилие.
February 23, 2025
Think I heard about this one on a podcast a few months back but don't remember exactly. Regardless, an interesting book discussing the biggest differences between men and women when it comes to relationships and sexual interaction. As usual, some high points but I'm trying to not just copy/paste with no context or thoughts. To make it "sink in", I have to filter the information through my own understanding right? That being said, some of the lines just stand well enough alone that they need no additional context....
- Discussion about the Pisaura spider was wild...brief summary; to attract a female, the male must carry a "gift" of an insect to her. Sometimes the female accepts the gift and eats it while copulating with the male but sometimes she grabs it and runs leaving him in the lurch. Male spiders have adapted with a couple counter-strategies of 1) hold on to the gift then go limp, hoping she'll carry it back to her place where he can "awaken" and get down to "business" while she eats OR 2) wrap some trash in silk which conceals what's inside and makes it easier to hold onto in case she tries to run with it. The fancier the wrapping, the longer it takes to open and during that time the male spider can copulate while she's opening it up. But wait, there's more! Female spiders have adapted to using scent to determine if there actually is a dead insect within the silk BUT the male spider can wrap the "trash" in silk thats been dragged through one of their own meals to give it that funky scent. Even spiders play games!
- Studies of online dating sites have discovered that most men find many women to be attractive, showing a roughly normal bell-shaped distribution. In contrast, most women find the average man to be below threshold, showing attraction mostly to men in the top 20%. OUCH!
- one school of pickup-artist thought recommends taking the woman to seven different locations within the span of a single evening, giving her the psychological illusion that more time has passed than actually has. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women are savvy about these coached tactics, and some merely go along before departing with a smile and a goodbye. (shady AF)
- women's eggs are more valuable, men's sperm is abundant and "cheap"
- The Tiwi tribe of Australia has a requirement that all females, regardless of age, must be married at ALL TIMES (Tiwi culture is WILD)
- "Some scholars argue that all men are potential sexual predators, but science does not bear out this dismal premise. Most men do not “corner” women by the copy machine, surreptitiously “ass-grab” when the opportunity arises, brag about sexual assault as part of “locker-room talk,” or show up to business meetings in bathrobes. Many men would not dream of harming women in these ways, or risk compromising their reputations, their futures, or their moral standards with inappropriate sexual advances, even if they experience sexual attraction and could get away with it." (can confirm!)
- "Women have less alcohol dehydrogenase in their stomachs than men. This enzyme is produced as part of the detoxification process of alcohol by the body. It is the key cause of why women become more rapidly intoxicated by alcohol than men, even when they consume less per body weight."
- "Long-distance romances often burn bright. Lacking exposure to the ups and downs of daily life, they allow people to fill in gaps in knowledge with positive illusions because people often overidealize a partner in the flush of a new romance. In the absence of direct information, they infer that the partner is honest, agreeable, loyal, and emotionally stable when they do not possess all the information needed for these inferences. Long-distance relationships sometimes allow people to avoid sleepless nights when the kids are up sick and crying and the sink is full of dirty dishes. The burps and body odors of real-life contact can take the sparkle off an idealized romance." (Fantastic explanation/breakdown; true-life always brings reality checks)
- "Mate value within couples is inherently relative. Consequently, monitoring a partner’s mate value is not enough. Self-assessment is required. A woman’s or man’s mate value can increase over time. Either person might rise in status, inherit a bounty of resources, or distinguish themselves through acts of bravery, leadership, or wisdom, rendering them more desirable on the mating market. A woman whose mate value increases can find herself dissatisfied with her husband, even if his overall desirability has remained unchanged, as we saw in the tragic case of Dorothy Stratten and Paul Snider." (Self-assessment is required; no truer words have been written)
- "...women are more likely to cite emotional involvement as a reason for the affair. Men are more likely to cite pure sexual pleasure. These critical sex differences point to dramatically different functional reasons for male and female infidelity. For women especially, they point to the mate-switching function; for men, the desire for sexual variety."
- "An evolutionary psychological analysis yields insight into why financial struggles loom so large in marital conflicts. A key clue comes from gender differences in spending. Men are more likely to splash out cash for status-enhancing entertainment systems, new technologies, and flashy cars. Women are more likely to spend on designer clothing and appearance-enhancing cosmetics. In a nutshell, each uses pooled resources to enhance sex-linked components of their mate value—conspicuous displays of status for men and beauty-boosting products for women." (interesting but not surprising, although I'm not really this type of guy; I couldn't care less about entertainment systems and flashy cars but if you can get me a hardcover signed GK Chesterton book I'd probably find a way to raise some cash)
- "Only 41% of the men in existing relationships said that oral contact with someone else’s genitals would count as sex. But 65% of the men said that if their partner had oral contact, it would count as sex. Does this reveal the usual sexual double standard, where women are evaluated more harshly than men for the same conduct? The answer resides with what women say. About a third of women, 36%, indicate that if they had oral contact with someone else, it would count as sex—about the same as what men say. But 62% say that if their partner had oral contact with someone else, it would count as sex. These findings reveal a previously unexplored sexual double standard—not between men and women as groups, but rather between standards people hold for themselves versus their partners—what we can call the me versus thee double standard."
- "Evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill and evolutionary anthropologist Craig Palmer outlined two competing theories of rape, one endorsed by each author. Thornhill proposed the theory that men have evolved rape adaptations—specialized psychological mechanisms for forcing sex on unwilling women as a reproductive strategy. Palmer proposed instead that rape is a byproduct of other evolved mechanisms, such as the male desire for sexual variety, a desire for low-cost consensual sex, a psychological sensitivity to sexual opportunities, and the general capacity of men to use physical aggression to achieve a wide variety of goals." (there's a further breakdown in these two theories but both are pretty interesting)
- "Most scientific researchers do not consider jealousy to be a 'basic emotion.' Their argument is that jealousy contains no distinctive facial expression, in contrast to such emotions as fear, rage, and disgust" (interesting observation)
- "Sex-differentiated mating psychology also predicts sex differences in jealous actions taken when an infidelity is discovered. In studies of verbal interrogations upon discovery that some sort of infidelity has occurred, men are more likely to say 'Did you fuck him?' whereas women are more likely to say 'Do you love her?' Women are more likely to forgive a partner’s sexual infidelity; men are more likely to forgive an emotional infidelity if it was not accompanied by sexual intercourse with a rival man."
- "Male sexual jealousy is the leading cause of the murder of adult women, accounting for between 50 and 70% of all such homicides."
- "Although jealousy sometimes motivates women to murder, only 3% of murdered men are killed by their romantic partners or exes, and many of these female-perpetrated homicides are women defending themselves against a jealously violent man"
- "...an astonishing 79% of battered women ended up returning to live with their abuser."
- "Our study of 2,431 stalking victims found that stalking does sometimes succeed, even if the victory is a temporary one. A full 30 of women victims agree to meet with their stalkers at their request; 13% agree to date them; and 6% agree to have sex with them." (6% agree to have sex with them? Dang)
- "Professors Sarah Mesnick and Margo Wilson proposed perhaps the first line of defense, which they termed the 'bodyguard hypothesis'. According to this hypothesis, women form heterosexual pair-bonds with men in part to reduce their risk of sexual aggression from other men." (hey you bros in the friend zone, you're serving a purpose!)
- "Sociologists and criminologists have long observed what they call the 'fear of crime paradox.' Women are generally more fearful than men of all sorts of crimes—including being physically assaulted and murdered—but are statistically less likely to be victims of these crimes. One obvious exception looms large. Women are far more likely than men to be victims of sexual coercion."
- "Perhaps the most striking evidence of the protective function of fear comes from what is called the “second crime paradox,” which is that women are more fearful of being raped by strangers than by acquaintances. One study found that college women estimated that 43% would be raped by strangers, and this is surely an overestimate. Even the highest estimates put women’s chances of attempted or completed rape at 25%, and of these, an estimated 10% will be committed by strangers. The actual percentage of college women experiencing rape or attempted rape by strangers is estimated to be closer to 2.5%, rendering women’s estimates of 43% off base. Stranger rape is relatively rare, as noted earlier, accounting for only 10–20% of all rapes, compared with acquaintance rape, which is far more common, roughly 80–90%" (wow, acquaintance rape is far more common; yikes)
- "...although women’s rape fears appear to be adaptive, lowering their odds of becoming victims, these fears come with heavy costs. As feminist scholars have noted, fear keeps women indoors, especially at night, and prevents them from the freedom of movement that men enjoy. The attention and effort women allocate to anti-rape vigilance detracts from the attention and effort they could allocate to other challenges of life, including taking night classes, socializing freely, and advancing in their chosen profession. Women’s rape fears have additional social costs when women feel forced to prioritize friends and mates based on their ability to offer bodyguard protection, rather than on other important qualities."
- "Of all the violent crimes, rape is probably the most underreported. One survey study found that more than 50% of all victims never revealed the sexual assault to anyone, not even to their closest friends, within five years of the crime. At least 75% of all rapes are not reported to police, and some estimate the underreport rate to be as high as 90%. Report rates are lower for acquaintance rapes than for stranger rapes. The reasons for underreporting are many and complex. They include self-blame and blame by others. They include suspicions that women lie about rape, so victims worry that they might not be believed. They include the grueling process of grinding through the legal system, being forced to relive the trauma in depositions and court testimony, being subjected to skeptical cross-examination by defense lawyers, having their personal lives exposed, and anticipating a low likelihood that the accused will be convicted. Even if convicted, rapists often do little jail time." (this is sad, one example they gave was Brock Turner who ended up only serving SIX FRIGGIN MONTHS for trying to rape a girl next to a dumpster)
- "The technology behind porn access is modern. The sexual psychology it exploits is evolutionarily ancient."
- and one last nugget for Trivia...."It was not until 1993 that all fifty states within the United States finally deleted the marital rape exemption" (the marital rape discussion is again, further flushed out in the reading, but I'd think the two words next to each other can hint what that means exactly. Wild to think that women didn't have bodily autonomy within a relationship; I subscribe to the idea that you are still an individual within a relationship with another individual; you don't give up your own space and rights just because of the relationship).
Interesting book for sure.
- Discussion about the Pisaura spider was wild...brief summary; to attract a female, the male must carry a "gift" of an insect to her. Sometimes the female accepts the gift and eats it while copulating with the male but sometimes she grabs it and runs leaving him in the lurch. Male spiders have adapted with a couple counter-strategies of 1) hold on to the gift then go limp, hoping she'll carry it back to her place where he can "awaken" and get down to "business" while she eats OR 2) wrap some trash in silk which conceals what's inside and makes it easier to hold onto in case she tries to run with it. The fancier the wrapping, the longer it takes to open and during that time the male spider can copulate while she's opening it up. But wait, there's more! Female spiders have adapted to using scent to determine if there actually is a dead insect within the silk BUT the male spider can wrap the "trash" in silk thats been dragged through one of their own meals to give it that funky scent. Even spiders play games!
- Studies of online dating sites have discovered that most men find many women to be attractive, showing a roughly normal bell-shaped distribution. In contrast, most women find the average man to be below threshold, showing attraction mostly to men in the top 20%. OUCH!
- one school of pickup-artist thought recommends taking the woman to seven different locations within the span of a single evening, giving her the psychological illusion that more time has passed than actually has. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women are savvy about these coached tactics, and some merely go along before departing with a smile and a goodbye. (shady AF)
- women's eggs are more valuable, men's sperm is abundant and "cheap"
- The Tiwi tribe of Australia has a requirement that all females, regardless of age, must be married at ALL TIMES (Tiwi culture is WILD)
- "Some scholars argue that all men are potential sexual predators, but science does not bear out this dismal premise. Most men do not “corner” women by the copy machine, surreptitiously “ass-grab” when the opportunity arises, brag about sexual assault as part of “locker-room talk,” or show up to business meetings in bathrobes. Many men would not dream of harming women in these ways, or risk compromising their reputations, their futures, or their moral standards with inappropriate sexual advances, even if they experience sexual attraction and could get away with it." (can confirm!)
- "Women have less alcohol dehydrogenase in their stomachs than men. This enzyme is produced as part of the detoxification process of alcohol by the body. It is the key cause of why women become more rapidly intoxicated by alcohol than men, even when they consume less per body weight."
- "Long-distance romances often burn bright. Lacking exposure to the ups and downs of daily life, they allow people to fill in gaps in knowledge with positive illusions because people often overidealize a partner in the flush of a new romance. In the absence of direct information, they infer that the partner is honest, agreeable, loyal, and emotionally stable when they do not possess all the information needed for these inferences. Long-distance relationships sometimes allow people to avoid sleepless nights when the kids are up sick and crying and the sink is full of dirty dishes. The burps and body odors of real-life contact can take the sparkle off an idealized romance." (Fantastic explanation/breakdown; true-life always brings reality checks)
- "Mate value within couples is inherently relative. Consequently, monitoring a partner’s mate value is not enough. Self-assessment is required. A woman’s or man’s mate value can increase over time. Either person might rise in status, inherit a bounty of resources, or distinguish themselves through acts of bravery, leadership, or wisdom, rendering them more desirable on the mating market. A woman whose mate value increases can find herself dissatisfied with her husband, even if his overall desirability has remained unchanged, as we saw in the tragic case of Dorothy Stratten and Paul Snider." (Self-assessment is required; no truer words have been written)
- "...women are more likely to cite emotional involvement as a reason for the affair. Men are more likely to cite pure sexual pleasure. These critical sex differences point to dramatically different functional reasons for male and female infidelity. For women especially, they point to the mate-switching function; for men, the desire for sexual variety."
- "An evolutionary psychological analysis yields insight into why financial struggles loom so large in marital conflicts. A key clue comes from gender differences in spending. Men are more likely to splash out cash for status-enhancing entertainment systems, new technologies, and flashy cars. Women are more likely to spend on designer clothing and appearance-enhancing cosmetics. In a nutshell, each uses pooled resources to enhance sex-linked components of their mate value—conspicuous displays of status for men and beauty-boosting products for women." (interesting but not surprising, although I'm not really this type of guy; I couldn't care less about entertainment systems and flashy cars but if you can get me a hardcover signed GK Chesterton book I'd probably find a way to raise some cash)
- "Only 41% of the men in existing relationships said that oral contact with someone else’s genitals would count as sex. But 65% of the men said that if their partner had oral contact, it would count as sex. Does this reveal the usual sexual double standard, where women are evaluated more harshly than men for the same conduct? The answer resides with what women say. About a third of women, 36%, indicate that if they had oral contact with someone else, it would count as sex—about the same as what men say. But 62% say that if their partner had oral contact with someone else, it would count as sex. These findings reveal a previously unexplored sexual double standard—not between men and women as groups, but rather between standards people hold for themselves versus their partners—what we can call the me versus thee double standard."
- "Evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill and evolutionary anthropologist Craig Palmer outlined two competing theories of rape, one endorsed by each author. Thornhill proposed the theory that men have evolved rape adaptations—specialized psychological mechanisms for forcing sex on unwilling women as a reproductive strategy. Palmer proposed instead that rape is a byproduct of other evolved mechanisms, such as the male desire for sexual variety, a desire for low-cost consensual sex, a psychological sensitivity to sexual opportunities, and the general capacity of men to use physical aggression to achieve a wide variety of goals." (there's a further breakdown in these two theories but both are pretty interesting)
- "Most scientific researchers do not consider jealousy to be a 'basic emotion.' Their argument is that jealousy contains no distinctive facial expression, in contrast to such emotions as fear, rage, and disgust" (interesting observation)
- "Sex-differentiated mating psychology also predicts sex differences in jealous actions taken when an infidelity is discovered. In studies of verbal interrogations upon discovery that some sort of infidelity has occurred, men are more likely to say 'Did you fuck him?' whereas women are more likely to say 'Do you love her?' Women are more likely to forgive a partner’s sexual infidelity; men are more likely to forgive an emotional infidelity if it was not accompanied by sexual intercourse with a rival man."
- "Male sexual jealousy is the leading cause of the murder of adult women, accounting for between 50 and 70% of all such homicides."
- "Although jealousy sometimes motivates women to murder, only 3% of murdered men are killed by their romantic partners or exes, and many of these female-perpetrated homicides are women defending themselves against a jealously violent man"
- "...an astonishing 79% of battered women ended up returning to live with their abuser."
- "Our study of 2,431 stalking victims found that stalking does sometimes succeed, even if the victory is a temporary one. A full 30 of women victims agree to meet with their stalkers at their request; 13% agree to date them; and 6% agree to have sex with them." (6% agree to have sex with them? Dang)
- "Professors Sarah Mesnick and Margo Wilson proposed perhaps the first line of defense, which they termed the 'bodyguard hypothesis'. According to this hypothesis, women form heterosexual pair-bonds with men in part to reduce their risk of sexual aggression from other men." (hey you bros in the friend zone, you're serving a purpose!)
- "Sociologists and criminologists have long observed what they call the 'fear of crime paradox.' Women are generally more fearful than men of all sorts of crimes—including being physically assaulted and murdered—but are statistically less likely to be victims of these crimes. One obvious exception looms large. Women are far more likely than men to be victims of sexual coercion."
- "Perhaps the most striking evidence of the protective function of fear comes from what is called the “second crime paradox,” which is that women are more fearful of being raped by strangers than by acquaintances. One study found that college women estimated that 43% would be raped by strangers, and this is surely an overestimate. Even the highest estimates put women’s chances of attempted or completed rape at 25%, and of these, an estimated 10% will be committed by strangers. The actual percentage of college women experiencing rape or attempted rape by strangers is estimated to be closer to 2.5%, rendering women’s estimates of 43% off base. Stranger rape is relatively rare, as noted earlier, accounting for only 10–20% of all rapes, compared with acquaintance rape, which is far more common, roughly 80–90%" (wow, acquaintance rape is far more common; yikes)
- "...although women’s rape fears appear to be adaptive, lowering their odds of becoming victims, these fears come with heavy costs. As feminist scholars have noted, fear keeps women indoors, especially at night, and prevents them from the freedom of movement that men enjoy. The attention and effort women allocate to anti-rape vigilance detracts from the attention and effort they could allocate to other challenges of life, including taking night classes, socializing freely, and advancing in their chosen profession. Women’s rape fears have additional social costs when women feel forced to prioritize friends and mates based on their ability to offer bodyguard protection, rather than on other important qualities."
- "Of all the violent crimes, rape is probably the most underreported. One survey study found that more than 50% of all victims never revealed the sexual assault to anyone, not even to their closest friends, within five years of the crime. At least 75% of all rapes are not reported to police, and some estimate the underreport rate to be as high as 90%. Report rates are lower for acquaintance rapes than for stranger rapes. The reasons for underreporting are many and complex. They include self-blame and blame by others. They include suspicions that women lie about rape, so victims worry that they might not be believed. They include the grueling process of grinding through the legal system, being forced to relive the trauma in depositions and court testimony, being subjected to skeptical cross-examination by defense lawyers, having their personal lives exposed, and anticipating a low likelihood that the accused will be convicted. Even if convicted, rapists often do little jail time." (this is sad, one example they gave was Brock Turner who ended up only serving SIX FRIGGIN MONTHS for trying to rape a girl next to a dumpster)
- "The technology behind porn access is modern. The sexual psychology it exploits is evolutionarily ancient."
- and one last nugget for Trivia...."It was not until 1993 that all fifty states within the United States finally deleted the marital rape exemption" (the marital rape discussion is again, further flushed out in the reading, but I'd think the two words next to each other can hint what that means exactly. Wild to think that women didn't have bodily autonomy within a relationship; I subscribe to the idea that you are still an individual within a relationship with another individual; you don't give up your own space and rights just because of the relationship).
Interesting book for sure.
March 4, 2025
This is the most important book I have ever read, and should be read by everyone. I didn't realize how much I needed this book, and it helped me understand a lot about myself and the world around me.
December 26, 2021
Fascinating and captivating.
January 2, 2022
It's an okay book, mostly stating the obvious and already known.
Why obvious books are so essential these days is a whole different box of bees.
Why obvious books are so essential these days is a whole different box of bees.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews