Are men attracted to subordinate women because more domineering women are an infidelity risk?

Question

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041220004026.htm

Men are more likely to want to marry women who are their assistants at work rather than their colleagues or bosses, a University of Michigan study finds.

Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating.

"Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high, a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only long-term, investing relationships---not one-night stands."

Sorry, feminists looks like biology trumps misguided politics every time.

The study is here for people who want moreinformation. I have quoted the relevant paragraph on infidelity risk:
http://www.bio.ilstu.edu/sakaluk/BSC%20304/BSC%20304%20PDFs/Brown%20and%20Lewis%202004%20Evol%20Human%20Behav%20-%20Relational%20Dominance.pdf

1.2. Paternal uncertainty and female social dominance
Relational dominance may be an important part of male mate-selection criteria if it constitutes a cue for the risk of paternal uncertainty, one of the most serious reproductive threats to males (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). Males who preferred to
mate with relatively subordinate partners (as opposed to higher dominance partners) may
have been better able to limit the chance (or amount) of paternal uncertainty either by preventing their partner from having sex outside of the partnership or by being able to closely monitor their partner’s sexual behavior for possible infidelity.

Consistent with this, research conducted on nonhumans demonstrates that male dominance
is associated with effective mate guarding and with increased reproductive success (e.g., Cant, 2000).

By the way, there is NO evidence to suggest that men prefer dominant females for one night stands as there is for females and their preference for dominant males for one night stands.

Sorry McFemale, there is biological evidence.

Answer 1

And now watch how they are gonna rationalize that strong men arent intimidated to marry modern powerdivorcewimmin.

Answer 2

men attracted subordinate women domineering women infidelity risk

Answer 3

I think men liking subordinate women as gone out of style; the subordinate woman just a 'style' of attraction, cast aside like a role playing sex game. The responsibility a man would feel toward his wife and family is no longer popular, it's more common for a man to want the woman to contribute at least half or all of the income so he can do more of what he wants in life; so the children are all disobedient and act like demons

Answer 4

"Sorry, feminists looks like biology trumps misguided politics every time. "


Where exactly in the article does the researcher prove that biology is the attributing factor, outruling social influence?

Aww, it doesn't

EDIT:

"Sorry McFemale, there is biological evidence."

LOL once again boybeast assumes the silly feminists can't read. I read the article and in no way shape or form does the study indicate that the attraction can be attributed to biological factors, in fact (just as I suggested) several times the article points to social factors, not biology.

But you just can't help yourself from making absolute statements with *absolutely* no proof.

Perhaps boybeast needs to be schooled in the differences of the life sciences vs. social sciences?

And where on earth is our resident biologist on this question, jonmc?

EDIT: BTW Wacko did find a source that attributes biology to the female preference of dominant males...

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002877.html

but the study indicates that the preference only exists when the female is both in a long term relationship and is ovulating, roughly 3 days out of every 28 day cycle.

The biological evidence seems to show that yes, women in long term relationships want dominant males when reproductive hormones are surging (aprox. 11% of the time) but as for the other 89% of the time or single women? Women couldn't care less how dominant or agressive a male is.

"This preference was not shown by women at other points in their cycle. What's more, the effect was only significant for women in long-term relationships"

Answer 5

The Wacko & Jesus Christ:
"Being bossed by a woman is degrading to a man."
Are you saying that your mother degraded you throughout your entire childhood? Hmmm. No wonder.

PortWine:
"Personally, I'd rather be with a more subordinate woman than a more domineering woman who is going to cause me to have to assert myself regularly over B.S"
Do you have a problem with asserting yourself? Yet you want a woman with high self-esteem? Isn't that a contradiction?
A "subordinate" woman by definition does NOT have high self-esteem.
subordinate- 1. of lower class or rank. 2. INFERIOR 3. submissive to authority- Merriam Webster


ROFLMAO.
That would be an interesting concept if it weren't complete male chauvinist propaganda.

First of all, "marriage" is not the reason men are attracted to subordinate partners. There are plenty of men who HAVE subordinate partners that they walk all over, use, abuse, and basically treat like sh*t. Therefore it's easy to conclude, that males want a subordinate partner so they can treat that partner however the hell they want. A subordinate partner isn't going to put up any resistance. She won't ask, " Honey, where have you been?" A man knows this. It's like the kid who wishes he had a pushover mom; he wants one so he can get away with basically anything without ever being challenged or questioned. Weak, submissive women find themselves the victims of infidelity, physical abuse, and neglect all too often. I also find it ironic that this "study" references marriage at all, because more often than not, a man will stall on marriage when he has a submissive woman; especially if she loves him. He'll drag her dumb @ss along for years, with the false hope of a potential marriage, while he sows his oats with every skank within a 50 mile radius. In this common situation, the woman will be his "girlfriend" for years, and years, while he chidishly persists with that age old "I'm just not ready yet" bullsh*t.

Answer 6

I think that one of the major flaws with this study is the interpretation of the results. There is an assumption being made that preference for subordinate partners is due to "adaptive benefits" having to do with reproduction. Where is the evidence for that? There is no evidence that this is true. There could be several other (and more plausible, in my opinion) reasons why men would tend to be more attracted to "subordinate females" in the workplace. For instance, men who have intimate relationships with bosses run the risk of possible job-security issues if the relationship ends on a bad note. They may fear losing their jobs, and don't want to risk that. Rarely is it ever a great idea to get involved with someone you work with, boss OR subordinate. Subordinates can't fire you, though, can they? And what about this: men might be more drawn to women who fit certain stereotypes: being "subordinate" is certainly a stereotyped woman. Men might subconsciously (or consciously) be drawn to women who seem more likely to "serve" them, or "serve" certain purposes. (And since we're talking about the workplace here, "reproduction" is doubtful to be one of those "purposes.")
The interpretation of this study suggests there are "reproductive benefits" to having a relationship to a "subordinate" woman. I find this to be a seriously flawed assumption. How many office affairs do you really think end in long-term marriage partnerships? It is more likely that office affairs are extra-marital affairs in the first place, and more likely to end badly. And as I've said before, men are usually (though not always!) smart enough to realize when they are playing with fire...messing around with the boss is like playing with fire. Having affairs in the first place is playing with fire. There is nothing about this study that proves anything about biology or reproductive or adaptive "benefits". It's irresponsible, to say the least, for someone to even suggest it.

Answer 7

If you intend to be beautiful for a female you will need this book https://tr.im/2yvzZ , The Tao of Badass which may “convert you” right into a person who draws all the women.
The Tao of Badass is a famous step-by-step system for picking right up girls that is which may work for anyone. Regardless of age, appears or how new you are around women. The guide shows you how to become ‘that man'who is wanted by plenty of women.
The Tao of Badass  it will make you ‘that guy'by arming you with the data of why you have to be like ‘that person'although giving you all the pick up skills you'll need to become ‘that person'who girls are attracted to.

Answer 8

Wouldn't subordinate women just be as likely to cheat because they would submit to other men?

Answer 9

Why are there so many men on hear trying to put down women, discourage women from being accomplished and educated, and insulting women who don't believe we should just stay home barefoot and pregnant? Do you really think we care about your opinion? I just don't understand. I have a high need for achievement. I happen to be a women. I'm not going to stop going to school, working full time, or moving up in the workforce because you think it will make men less attracted to me. Sucks that some guys can't appreciate a hard-working woman, but I would be less happy as a full time housewife than I would an educated working woman with no man.

Answer 10

Your theory is as good as any. My theory differs somewhat from yours. Insecure males prefer subordinate females because they are non threatening, compliant, and obediant. Strong secure women are not attracted to insecurity. These women appreciate males who are secure, intelligent, and enjoy being appreciated by their female. They also express their appreciation for the contributions their partner provides to the relationship. I CANNOT understand the casual concern about the potential for the occurance of pregnancy. Also, women are sexual beings, and most of us enjoy a romp in the hay. About the potential for pregnancy for women who enjoy sexual activity with others, as well as her partner,
I agree that safe sex practices are necessary to prevent an occurance of exposure to something much more dire than a serindipitous pregancy. Now then, is it a lesser event if the male partner of a relationship, has extramarital sexual activity, and, whoops!!! He has sired a child by this other woman. Or he brings home some nasty STD. You didn't mention what Brown and Lewis have to say about the extramartial sexual actvity involving the male of the partnership. And ya know, personally, I find the value of the the sexual behavior of both partners equal. AND!!! what does the issue of feminism have to do with changing social values. We, most of us, are born with the potential for reproduction. That does not mean that everyone should excerise that potential. There are state funded communities that care for the results of a lot of individuals who exercised their biological potential with disregard to the strong possibility the dna contributed by both parents have a 85% chance that their child will inherit the anomaly courtesy of their parents.

Answer 11

I don't understand this part:
"Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high, a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only long-term, investing relationships---not one-night stands."
So, if you get a chance to explain it in the details, I'd appreciate it.
Personally, I'd rather be with a more subordinate woman than a more domineering woman who is going to cause me to have to assert myself regularly over B.S. The best is a woman with a kind heart, a good sense of humor, and high self-esteem.