"Recent evidence suggests that in sexual selection on human males, intrasexual competition plays a larger role than female choice. In a sample of men (N = 164), we sought to provide further evidence on the effects of men's physical dominance and sexual attractiveness on mating success"

ashman24 · 2020-10-12T06:04:23+00:00

I'm not good at interpreting this stuff. To me this just sounds like more proof of height>everything else.

Njere · 2020-10-11T23:45:31+00:00

thewilloftheuniverse · 2020-11-27T01:37:48+00:00

The social dominance thing here is more evidence for red pill than black pill

statusincorporated · 2020-10-22T16:59:23+00:00

In terms of actual lay count --- neither variable could explain much:

"Using the number of sexual partners in the previous twelve months as an alternative indicator of mating success (as in Hill et al., 2013) with no overlap between T1 and T2, this association could be replicated only cross-sectionally, but not longitudinally. Neither male-male competition nor female choice longitudinally predicted an alternative measure of mating success, the number of potential conceptions ."

Apparently manlets can overcome:

"Our lack of detecting a significant effect of body height on mating success converges with previous studies showing a mixture of positive and negative, linear and quadratic associations between height and reproductive success (e.g., Nettle, 2002; Stulp, Pollet, Verhulst, & Buunk, 2012). On the contrary, negative linear selection of height under male-male competition (at least in the canonical analyses) contradicts some previous findings indicating that taller men on average are more aggressive, physically stronger and are perceived to have better fighting ability (for a review see Stulp & Barrett, 2016). This result may be explained as an oddity of our sample. Our sample of target men seems to be characterized by a slight overrepresentation of short men who are muscular and hence appear dominant, and tall but slim men who were rated as low in physical dominance."

Looks = everything...? Not according to this study.

"We found robust positive linear selection for facial attractiveness under both female choice and male-male competition (supporting Hill et al., 2013 for female choice, but contradicting their result for male-male competition), as well as selection for increased facial and bodily dominance under male-male competition, but not consistently under female mate choice. These findings are somewhat in line with previous suggestions that men’s facial masculinity may not be preferred by women, since it conveys impressions of aggressiveness and may hence be more functional in male contests (Puts et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2014). Neither facial dominance nor attractiveness predicted mating success, partly contradicting previous findings (e.g., Mueller & Mazur, 1997")

Comments