Mathematicians' guide to first-date etiquette
Scientists say they have proof that women are better off with men willing to wait before they have sex
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
PA
"By delaying mating, the female is able to reduce the chance that she will mate with a bad male"
enlarge
If only Bridget Jones had listened to the received wisdom that it is best not to sleep with a man on the first date, she might have saved herself a lot of heartache.
Now mathematicians have proved what women have been counselling their friends for years: a woman increases her chances of getting a "good" man by not sleeping with a partner straight away. They used a numerical model to show that better partners were willing to date for a longer time before having sex, but "bad" men were more reluctant to hang around.
Professor Robert Seymour, of University College London, said: "Longer courtship is a way for the female to acquire information about the male. By delaying mating, the female is able to reduce the chance she will mate with a bad male. A male's willingness to court for a long time is a signal that he is likely to be a good male.
"Long courtship is a price paid for increasing the chance that mating, if it occurs, will be a harmonious match which benefits both sexes. This may help to explain the commonly held belief that a woman is best advised not to sleep with a man on a first date."The research is published in this month's Journal of Theoretical Biology. Dr Peter Sozou, of Warwick Medical School and the LSE Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, said: "The strategic problem a female faces is how to screen out bad males, and this is where long courtship comes into play. A male is assumed to always want to mate with a female, but a good male is more willing to pay the cost of a long courtship to claim the prize of mating."
He added: "The female's strategy is a compromise, a trade-off."
There is, apparently, a way to avoid the chances of picking a dud man altogether, but it might not be an answer many women want to hear. Dr Sozou said: "She cannot eliminate this risk completely unless she decides never to mate."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
In fact all the social and psychological behaviour of men and women and its difference between the two, have its root on the essential biological difference between a male and a female; that is the female is the one with the big sexual egg that is a very precious 'resource' that is produced much less frequently and much scarcer than the male sexual cells produced massively and frequently.
Therefore, simply put, the evolution driven male genetic strategy is to mate with as many females as he can; while the female genetic strategy is to find the 'good' male with resources and commitment that helps her not only produce a fit offspring but also helps her raise it to adult age, etc, etc...
I highly recommend the great book "The Moral Animal. The science of evolutionary psychology" by Robert Wright. All these questions are very well explained and debated.
I highly recommend you the book "The Moral Animal. The science of evolutionary psychology" by Robert Wright. All these questions are very well explained and debated.
Who could have guessed?
I'd say the big mystery is why this is explicitly genderized? Because, the way I see it, ANY PERSON (male or female) would be better off with someone who wants to get to know them, and isn't insecure or sex-crazed enough to be unable or unwilling to wait.
The intense gender-focus here is incredibly stupid, and is a sign of a culture that tries to push people into gender stereotypes at all costs.
Actually, my last paragraph was an assumption. They never said what a 'good male' was. I assumed it meant better genes, those that are more likely to survive andbe naturally selected and that are better for the offspring.
Is the article implying that guys willling to wait for sex (a psychological factor) is correlated with virility, fertility, and good genes?
I don't have access to the Journal of Theoretical Biology mentioned in the article, and I'm sure most readers don't, so maybe a quick explanation from someone who has read the original can clarify
In other words, you better put out, ladies, or the good males will get wise to how bad you are.
I thought prostitution was illegal. This sounds very demeaning to both genders. Though I know many treat sex as something a woman sacrifices for a man, can I just say "YUCK!". Women need to empower themselves by taking time to understand their sexuality (let alone men). It does not just come naturally with puberty or just waiting long enough. Take control, be pragmatic, and enjoy yourself, when the time feels right, without being pressured into doing anything you don't want to do, but keep an open mind.
What was their data anyway? Interviews with couples on their 50th anniversary asking how long they waited? People that divorced in less than a year? People that say "I'm sad", or "I'm happy". Was this only people in relationships, or people who were single? Were these people in clinics for nymphomania? I can find happy and miserable people in all kinds of relationships. What science or even matter for that matter are you trying to show? 1 day is short period of time?
Objectifying sexuality and particularly female sexuality this way I find offensive. However, for those of you that can't seem to learn from your mistakes (which sadly maybe the truth of this "study", though who could ever know without the data) then maybe you are better off waiting. I think if things don't click reasonably well on the first date, maybe you should think of cutting your losses. Learn to trust and improve your instincts, both the onces that say "this guy seems to be trying to hard" and the one that says "I bet this guy would be a great lay".
I just keep reading it and am just trying to think of this in anything but a sick and depraved way. "a good male is more willing to pay the cost of a long courtship to claim the prize of mating". While women can get a good vibe that says "let's take things slow", I certainly hope that NO woman ever buys into this misogynistic crap that a woman are a commodity to be bought and sold.
Changing the price doesn't make you less of a whore. Try instead to THINK and be WISE about your CHOICES.
~nakedpenguins.net
www.medics4u.com
women of all creeds and colours have got it sussed! They did not have to learn this..:)
It came built in when they were born! :)
www.medics4u.com
Obviously the idea that there are times in a woman's life where she doesn't want to have a relationship
but just , well, fun , has missed the scientist's attention.
By the way, as a female mathematician I know, these are the things in people' lives you can't calculate !!
Look, people, there is a simple reason why the two sides are asymmetrical. Think about what it costs (in terms of resources) for a a human male to manufacture one single sperm. Now realize that the cost of reproduction for the female is much, much greater. In addition to the cost of the ovum, she will have to sustain the offspring during gestation and beyond. Males are motivated by evolution to mate with as much frequency as possible and with as many fertile women as possible. Please notice I said by evolution; cultural forces can and do compete with evolutionary goals.
Females, on the other hand, gain an advantage in reproducing their genes by finding a mate that will hang around for a long time after the act of fertilization to assist in providing resources for the offspring. If is because of the relative reproduction cost of males and females that there exists a conflict of interest when it comes to mating, and it is this conflict which leads to the development of different mating strategies for men and for women.
The same way girls don't like getting played, is the same way guys don't like getting played.
There's an inherent conflict of interest. If the guy waits, he's taking on more risk of being played (and this article or so-called study is an attempt to try and encourage guys to bear all this risk). How many women do you know that would date a man (without feeling ashamed, bad or guilty) that they have no intentions of ever having sex with him, starting a relationship with him, or marrying him? If the girl has sex on the first date, she's taking on more risk of being played. Similarly, how many guys do men know that would have sex with a girl (without feeling ashamed, bad or guilty) that they know they don't really feel anything emotional for, are faking a relationship for, and KNOW that there is no future with that girl?
The truth is, the more desperate and lower a man's self-esteem is, the longer he is willing to wait for sex; any kind of sex he can get, because for these men, beggars can't be choosers, so they'll take what they can get and wait as long as it takes to get it. On that note, these men also tend to be "nice". And by "nice", I mean wimpy, spineless, and complete pushovers; or as the author puts it, "good" men. These are exactly the guys who fake an entire relationship just to hold onto the only sex they will ever have in their entire life. These are also the guys who's low self-esteem that is begging for validation will easily fall prey and victim to an other woman's efforts to destroy that relationship.
For men who are either attractive, successful (or both), and not desperate or suffering from low self-esteem in need of sexual approval or validation; they have an extremely low tolerance for "waiting". They have respect for themselves, sex is important to them, and a partner who can't respect and understand that is not a partner that's worth being with; and for these men, it's not a problem, because they have no shortage of choices to pick from. Which means that the "safe" female mating strategy is to settle for a desperate loser with low self-esteem (no breaking news there), while the "risky" mating strategy would be taking her chances with the pool of sexually desirable men.
The guys in the second category are either in "race" mode (trying to compete with other men in the same mode and keep count of who has had sex with more different women during their life time), or into "been there, done that" mode (where they're sexually satisfied by sleeping with hot chick after hot chick, and now they're really just looking for someone they can't help but be madly in love with and feel the powerful urge to want to take care of); but I guess this isn't a "good" mate at all.
As an economist, this article is a joke at best. The author stipulates that "a male's willingness to court for a long time is a signal that he is likely to be a good male". Really? How? Why? I'm sure little girls reading that nodded their heads thinking "so true" as it appealed to exactly what they wanted to hear. But logically, that statement or conclusion, lacks soundness. Is the mathematician trying to imply that "only if a male is willing to court for a long time, then he is a good partner" or "if a male is willing to court for a long time, then he is a good partner"? If it is the former, he (most likely, she) is incorrect, since there are both other qualities that compose a good partner and males who are not willing to take on that kind of risk but are also good partners. If it is the latter, then the results of the model are meaningless since the duration the male is willing to wait determines nothing about his "goodness".
Symbolically:
Sufficient Condition:
W --> G
~W --> ~G
Necessary Condition:
G --> W
~W --> ~G
Since there are men who are good partners, but are not willing to court beyond a certain duration or wait that long until sex, for reasons beyond just risk of being played, then we know that we're not dealing with the case of the necessary condition.
Since we're dealing with the case of the sufficient condition, a male who is NOT a good partner (G) is NOT willing to wait (W). Given the information that a male is NOT a good partner (G), what can we deduce? That's right, that he is NOT willing to wait (W); since that's exactly what the sufficient condition says, (If he's not a good partner, then he will not be willing to wait). Given the information that a male is NOT willing to wait (W); what can we deduce about the "goodness" of this male? That's right, jack shit. Good job on your statistics, modeling, econometrics and mathematical logic courses. The conditional statement has a direction, and if we are just given the conclusion (the he is not willing to wait), we CANNOT deduce the premise (if he is good or not).
You will find that this is consistent with reality. I really do hope this wasn't you attempt at your PhD thesis. If so, I hope you have more luck defending it than you've had with your mating strategy so far.