He describes some recent research which purports to debunk the claim that there are more than a very few ‘cougars’.

Cougars here does not refer to mountain lions but, rather, to older women (over 40 years of age, typically) who date and mate with men who are younger than themselves (several years younger … not just, say, twelve days younger).

The research in question came from Michael Dunn, a noted psychology researcher at the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff. And he based his conclusions on a detailed review of 22,400 singles ads (on popular dating websites in selected countries) and in particular on the “age preference” that was indicated in each of those ad.

Here was his main conclusion:

“… he found no sizable cohort of women seeking younger men. To the contrary, almost all of them wanted men their own age or older.”

And he continued that:

“… the overwhelming majority of men displayed their eons-old preference for younger women.”

I haven’t seen his specific methodology, so I’m unsure of how he dealt with “age straddle” situations, which could considerably influence the reported findings. For example, let’s suppose that (as commonly happens) a 43 year-old woman indicates that she’s looking for a man “between the ages of 35 and 65 … how would that get tallied?

Would she be labeled as “being a cougar” (since she’s open to men are as young as 35) … or as “not being a cougar” (as she’s also willing to consider men who are older than her)? My guess is that she would be tallied in the “not a cougar” group, as otherwise “cougars” would have been a whole lot more common in his final tallies.

The Evolutionary Factor

Do most guys prefer a younger woman? That seems to match my experience and observations over many years and in many countries and cities. And from an evolutionary standpoint, such a preference can make some sense (since youthfulness correlates with “reproductive fitness”).

Would the same hold for women? Perhaps so … after all, men’s reproductive fitness seems to decline as well as they get older (although apparently less quickly and without the “falling off the cliff” part of the curve that comes with menopause). Still, it would make sense that women should find younger guys to be quite a tempting morsel in the absence of social strictures (and such) which attempt to smother the expression of such urges.

Evolutionarily, therefore, the idea of being attracted to younger partners would make good sense to men but also to women (although to a lesser extent, as men’s reproductive fitness seems to decline somewhat more slowly).

On the other hand, women not only prefer (in the evolutionary sense) “good DNA”, which is the reason for seeking “reproductive fitness” in the men who supply same to the equation. They also need resources (over an extended period) to raise those resulting kids to maturity (as women are able to deliver fewer kids than men are theoretically capable of siring and women are therefore are under more evolutionary pressure to “make each one count”).

And, unlike reproductive fitness, “financial fitness” tends to increase over time for most men (how many 22-year-old CEOs are there out there pulling down $20 million a year?).

Having It All

Ideally (according to several women over the years who candidly expressed their inner thoughts to me on the topic), a woman would have a wealthy husband (which in reality usually means “quite a bit older”) who bankrolls her lifestyle … but at the same time she would have a much sexier lover (which could mean “a lot younger”) to keep her sexually satisfied.

Because women have two needs in this area (high quality sperm plus ample resources) and because the former is more likely to be found in a younger man and the latter is more likely to be found in an older man, women seem to have evolved with a greater range in what age groups they will consider for mating. But, of course, society frowns on that arrangement (rich older guys are especially not keen on the concept) and so women of necessity are wise to (and usually do) keep such urges secret.

Mr. Padgett references a second study done by the AARP in 2003 which is more plausible:

“… a 2003 study by AARP found that while a not-surprising two-thirds of American men over 40 were dating younger women, an unexpected 34% of 40-and-older women were dating younger men.”

That one passes the reasonableness test for me. It seems to suggest (which would be consistent with my own many observations over the years) that dating patterns represent a blending of our preferences with our perceived marketability and opportunities.

Being Realistic About Possibilities

In that regard it works very similarly to employment. Many of us might prefer a very high-paying job with an unlimited expense account, a corporate jet at our beck and call, no one to answer to and plenty of paid vacation time, with the work itself being interesting and emotionally rewarding.

Does that sound like your job?

I didn’t think so. In life we often aspire high but usually end up settling for less than our ideal wish list. Why? There aren’t nearly enough plum jobs (or extremely desirable romantic partners) to go around … so the choice comes down to “we can either settle for what we’re able to get” or “we will end up having to do without altogether”.

So in that sense, the idea of “seeking” someone older or of “seeking” someone younger is not especially meaningful. It may provide the starting point in deciding where to look but very few of us can have our pick of any mate (in the same way that very few of us can have our pick of any job).

And in picking that starting point (again, whether looking for a job or a mate), we factor in what we think is possible. So I might prefer to get a CEO job but would not waste time (and endure rejection) in chasing one as there’d be no chance to get one.

The same works for dating and mating. I might prefer to date super-models but would not waste time (and endure rejection) in chasing one as there also there would be no chance to get one.

Gamesmanship

Therefore, the “age preference” that people will include in personal ads is not a preference in the strict sense. It’s more a guess as to what you think will draw a good number of at least tolerable respondents.

In that sense, it’s like sending in a résumé to a prospective employer in response to a job ad that asks that you include your “salary expectations”. What number do you put in?

Your preference might be for a $100 million annual salary but that’s not the number that you’ll mention. You’ll pick a number (say, $55,000) that is at the upper end of what you think you can mention without getting rejected summarily (for pricing yourself “out of the market”).

And since you don’t know for sure what their cut-off number might be, you’ll probably include a range of numbers (such as “in the $45,000 to $65,000 range”) rather than just a single number, in the hope of improving your hit rate.

The same dynamic is involved in personal ads. When it comes to dating, relating and mating, gamesmanship is the norm in the early stages. We’re rarely candid about what we’re really looking for. And a prospective partner’s age tends to be only the fourth or fifth item on our wish list anyway (that seems to be the case for women as well).

In dating, as in life, we aim for the best “package deal” we think we can get … and so do women. Whatever the actual relative ages of the partners end up being is coincidental.

Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler

I don’t normally give much credence to romantic advice from women, since much of it is directed toward “what women want” rather than “what will make it easier for the guy to actually get her into bed” (and those are two very different things).

However, I found that this blog post was a lot more insightful than what you’d typically see. For example, she is candid in pointing out that (in the service industry):

“The friendlier you are, the better your tips. Often, ‘friendly’ can come across as flirtatious, which means that waitresses and lady bartenders are used to fielding (and rejecting) nightly come-ons and pick-up lines from poor, misguided guys.”

And she’s also very candid in explaining how to differentiate between your waitress actually being interested in getting a lot closer to you and your waitress just working you for a larger gratuity.

I’ll leave that topic to her blog posting (which I recommend that you take a look at). But what especially caught my eye was another comment she had made (in discussing two of her friends who were waitresses and are now in serious relationships with men they met waitressing):

“Steal this move, if you dare: One guy was on a date with another woman when he met my friend. He came back the next day to ask her out.”

She presents that one as if it’s almost unbelievable, but in my experience it’s been the single best way I’ve found to hook up with waitresses whom I fancy: to come with a woman already.

Oddly (or perhaps not so oddly) enough, there are very few things that many women seem to enjoy more than taking an interesting guy away from another woman. That competitive streak seems to be wired into their nervous systems, whether it’s competing for male attention in general or competing for a specific man.

“… like catnip to a cat …”

But it doesn’t work well if you show up with, say, your sister … or your grandmother. It has to be a woman whom they think is really sweet on you. And if that woman who is sweet on you starts acting very possessive toward you, that’s like catnip to a cat.

The waitress will be likely to become much more interested in that case. And the more that “your” woman tries to shoe the waitress away and dissuade her, the more interesting – and desirable – you’ll seem to the waitress.

That dynamic worked so well for me starting out that I began doing it intentionally. I had an attractive accountant (she was Vietnamese with an exotic look) working for me for several years whom I would take out to lunch to play the role of the possessive woman.

I would flirt with a waitress, and my accountant would act agitated and tell the waitress curtly that I was not available and to stop flirting with me. And the waitress would become increasingly interested in me.

It was great fun and it worked very well for me. But to most guys, it might seem to be counterintuitive. They don’t realize that women don’t expect that the most desirable men will be available, in the same way that executive recruiters don’t look for executives who are unemployed: if you really were that good, another woman (or employer) would have snatched you up already.

The Ultimate Endorsement

Besides, if you were to just come out and tell a woman how desirable you are, she won’t believe you. Why not? Because your claim would have no credibility … you have an ulterior motive (which is to get her into bed).

But if another woman (especially an attractive one) conveys that same message (by her blocking behavior), then that does have credibility. She would not be trying to keep you all for herself if she hadn’t already learned that you were well worth having.

And the more attractive “your” woman is, the more guys she would have had the chance to have picked instead of you. So if you’re the one she seems to want most, that’s proves that you are even more desirable as you must have prevailed against stiff (no pun intended) competition.

It’s the ultimate endorsement … and Nature seems to have designed women to respond accordingly.

Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler

He critiques an article on the topic by University of Texas psychologist David Buss (which appears in the July issue of Personality and Individual Differences) which “suggests that evolutionary forces … push women to be more sexual, although in unexpected ways”.

Those findings include these observations:

“… women in their 30s and early 40s are significantly more sexual than younger women. Women ages 27 through 45 report not only having more sexual fantasies (and more intense sexual fantasies) than women ages 18 through 26 but also having more sex, period. And they are more willing than younger women to have casual sex, even one-night stands. In other words, despite the girls-gone-wild image of promiscuous college women, it is women in their middle years who are America’s most sexually industrious.”

Based on my own experiences and on my observations of others over many years, I don’t doubt that many older pre-menopausal women are very sexual but I’m less convinced that younger women are less sexual.

And I’m not sold on Mr. Buss’s explanation (which I’m trimming for brevity) as to why that happens:

“Our female ancestors grew accustomed to watching many of their children die of various [causes] before being able to have kids of their own. This left a psychological imprint to bear as many children as possible. Becoming pregnant is [so] much easier for [young] women … that they need not spend much time having sex. However, after the mid-20s, the lizard-brain impulse to have more kids faces a stark reality: it’s harder and harder to get pregnant as a woman’s remaining eggs age. And so women in their middle years respond by seeking more and more sex.”

I’ll agree that evolution seems to account for most behavioral patterns that we do see in people. And I would agree that evolution accounts for women liking sex. However, I don’t buy that explanation as the reason older women might be more sexually active than younger women (if indeed they are).

After all, “natural selection” is not an intellectual process (even viruses and other “low IQ” life forms experience it), so it makes no sense that women would tool along with a lower sex drive until much later in life (when they can figure out that their fertility is waning). All it should imply is that post-pubescent but pre-menopausal women (no matter where they fall within that age range) should be strongly motivated to have sex with at least some males.

Carnal Urges

And I believe that is indeed the case. If you’ve ever had teenage daughters, for example, you’ll understand that girls become “boy crazy” at a very young age … carnal urges don’t wait until a female is thirty-something.

I also found my college days to be pretty much a nonstop party … very few of the co-eds there were not having plenty of sex. Those few that were not having it just hadn’t gotten an interesting offer yet. And a lot of that sex was casual. One-night stands were not that common (compared to later years with older women) but “sex on the first date” was at least as common.

Do Women Change … Or Is It The Men?

The difference between older women and younger women in that regard wasn’t that older women put out more quickly, it was that younger guys (college men) were a lot more likely to go back for more dates after getting laid on the first date by a young woman than much older guys are after getting laid on the first date with a much older woman.

When you’re a young guy, you need it more than you will twenty or thirty years later. There’s a three-ring circus going on in your pants and your drives are at their most intense, so you don’t pass up chances for a second or a third go-round with a lovely (and accommodating) young lady. You’ll keep dining there until you stumble across a better buffet elsewhere.

Getting Older

Twenty or thirty years later, “the General” will have calmed down quite a bit (you won’t have nearly the same sense of urgency you had in your younger days) and you might also have gotten a bit more claustrophobic regarding women.

When older women do hear their “clock” ticking and are looking to settle down with you (with all of the cost, drama and impingement this would bring you), many guys at that age have figured out that it’s best not to overstay (otherwise you may end up not being able to extricate yourself safely and inexpensively).

From my observations, the main reason many men do date 40-year-old women is that 20-year-old women will no longer agree to go out with them. They settle for what they can get (since they still need to get laid now and then) but they’re less inspired about their choices.

“Catch and Release” Courting

That’s a big reason why so many guys in their fifties, forties and even thirties have come to practice “catch and release” courting. And I suspect that’s the main reason why older women are more likely to do one-night-stands: it’s not that the women put out faster, it’s that the guys are less likely to come back for a second date later.

In fact, it’s not unusual at that age for the guy to wonder (ten seconds after he climaxes) “Is there a graceful way for me to leave now that won’t cause too much of a scene?”

Evaluating Research Findings

On a separate aspect, though, I was impressed with Mr. Cloud’s write-up for taking a look at the underlying research methodology.

There is a lot of junk research done (to push a particular agenda, for example) and the three areas that warrant a very close look are:

1. What was the actual underlying research methodology?
2. What were the actual (raw) findings?
3. Do the conclusions logically fit the raw findings?

In this case, Mr. Cloud quite correctly points out that the sample group was selected non-randomly in a way likely to skew the results. As a result, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in evaluating the reasonableness of the actual findings.

Self-Reports

But even had the sample group been more representative (of the population as a whole), I’ve observed from my own past experience conducting and participating in research projects that self-reports tend to be of only limited value.

That’s doubly true if the topic being reported on involves sex (and triply so if it involves women reporting on their own sex life). Since there is ample moral and cultural baggage related to sex, people are rarely candid unless you’ve known them very well for a long time … and even then, a certain amount of fabrication is still quite common.

For example, it’s not uncommon for younger (sexually active) women to feign being chaste (that being what polite society expects). Why take the chance that someone might judge you unfavorably?

But 40-year-old women who have already had two divorces and four kids? It’d be pretty hard for those women to feign innocence (or inexperience) in sexual matters, so most don’t.

Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler

In the article, Brian provides a concise and focused commentary (as Forbes writers always seem to do quite effectively) on several of the technological advances that are available for tracking the whereabouts and wanderings of someone else.

And who might that “someone else” be?

For Love … or Money

Certainly, your boss might well be interested in monitoring your movements on the job. That desire on the part of bosses everywhere goes a long way in explaining why the technology mentioned here had originally been developed.

But you don’t really care how your co-workers spend their Sunday afternoons or what the FedEx delivery guy does on his days off. What your interest would be is in what your partner (girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband, as the case may be) is up to when you’re not around to “supervise”.

“Cheating in relationships” is a common occurrence and can result in your losing that relationship altogether. And that’s true even if it is only you who is cheating or only your partner cheating. On this dance floor, it only takes one partner to tango on out the door.

So, not surprisingly, a sizeable percentage of people will do a bit of “relationship spying” if the opportunity presents itself. That’s basic human nature. What has evolved is just how much you can spy on your partner (and vice-versa) if you use the latest technology.

“Can” vs. “Should”

But just because you can do something doesn’t make it a smart idea to then do it. For example, at least one country has enough nuclear weapons to kill every man, woman and child on the planet several times over, but that hardly makes it a good idea to do it.

Is it a good idea to track your partner? Prior to the adoption of the “no-fault divorce” laws, it was (if you wanted out yourself) since “fault” that could be proven (with 8 x 10 glossies, for example) was taken into account in deciding how to divide the property and future income. It could make a very big difference.

But that was then and this is now. And nowadays, it’s hard to come up with many good reasons for tracking your partner. But there are good reasons why not to.

For example, some technologies may be illegal in some jurisdictions (unless you’re the government or someone important who has plenty of political clout). Just what you need … an unfaithful spouse and a prison term.

Second, anytime you track someone, you run the risk of detection by the person being tracked. And that creates a serious but separate problem for you: she is quite likely to dump you on the spot for having tried to track her … even if she was being a good girl and had nothing to hide.

Partly, she’ll be pissed that you don’t trust her. And partly, she’ll realize that you’re very insecure and women tend to find very insecure men to be a whole lot less desirable than they find confident men to be.

It’s the Principle of the Thing

I would certainly dump my partner on the spot the first time I caught her trying to track me. Relationships are built on trust and tracking someone indicates your lack of trust.

I’ve also found out the hard way that women who are insecure enough to try and track your moves tend to have and cause many more problems in time if you stay with them. And the same holds in reverse … if I were a woman and I caught a guy trying to track me, he would be history. He’d get no second chances, no matter what.

It may be true (as former radio jock Tom Leykis frequently observed) that you get the best sex from the “psycho bitches from Hell”. And I’ve heard women say (about a particular guy of ill repute they were shagging) that “Sure, he’s criminally insane … but it’s the best sex I’ve ever had!”

But in the longer run, it just isn’t worth it. I know … I’ve overstayed with several unbalanced women. These days, I’m gone at the first sign of craziness, and that includes women who would try to put a key logger on my computer, for example, or put hidden cameras in my house.

I’ve got a strict “zero tolerance” policy and have never since regretted it.

The Big Picture

It’d be very difficult to track your partner 24-7 in any case, so ultimately, all you can really know for certain about her is how well she treats you when you and she are together. And ultimately, that’s all that really matters to me.

If she treats me great whenever we’re together, that’s all I need to know when deciding whether to keep her around. Whatever she does when she’s not around is not affecting me negatively and therefore I just don’t worry about it any more. So if she did get a bit on the side a few times but it has no effect on how she treats me, then so be it. I’d chalk it up to human nature.

But if she treats me like crap whenever we’re together, that’s also all I need to know when deciding whether to keep her around. I’m not interested in staying with women who treat me like crap, so I’ll end the relationship. It doesn’t matter whether she’d been unfaithful or not, as I don’t tolerate people mistreating me (even if they had been faithful).

Why worry about stuff that might be? Focus on what you do experience with her. And if she really is starting to tire of you and to look for your replacement, you’ll be able sense this (if you pay attention) in the subtle changes in how she behaves toward you when she is around you.

That’s the better source for taking your cues.

Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler

This is not a new topic for discussion (it’s been going on for at least several decades, and maybe even since the beginning of time), but it’s always an interesting read.

The results of the poll itself so far are unsurprising. Last I checked, the five choices (for When it comes to dating, what’s your height rule?) were ranked by percentage of votes each as follows:

(1) A guy has to be taller than me, period = 37%
(2) He has to be at least as tall as I am = 36%
(3) I’m open to guys who are a couple of inches shorter = 10%
(4) I don’t care at all how tall a man is = 10%
(5) I am currently dating or married to a man who is shorter than I am = 8%

Nearly three-fourths of the respondents want their man to be at least as tall as they are and another tenth allow no more than a two-inch “fudge factor”. Also, there’s no indication (for those 8% who already have a shorter partner) as to how much shorter he is, and so quite a few of them might also fall within the two-inch fudge range.

That leaves only one-tenth of respondents who claim not to care about how tall their man is, and I would question whether they’re being totally candid (with themselves, at least). I suspect that further grilling would reveal that they perhaps don’t consider height to be the “sole” factor … or the “most important” factor.

But is their partner’s height completely unimportant to them? That seems to be a bit of a stretch to me (no pun intended), unless they’re giving the “noble” response instead of the heartfelt response.

Or perhaps really short women would pick that choice as, for them, there aren’t likely to be any men who are shorter than they are anyway.

It’s Darwinian

A lot of research has been done the last several decades comparing male height with male earnings (and other measures of male success) and all of that research shows a strong correlation between male height and male success. The taller the guy, the more successful he is likely to be (on average).

This “height effect” encounters the law of diminishing returns at the height of around 6’2” (i.e. further benefit is limited once a guy hits that height) but it is truly amazing just how significant the correlation is between height and success.

And there is ample research to show that women prefer taller men (other things being remotely comparable). And it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (even though being a shorter male is less of a handicap in the modern world where physical stature and strength are less of a factor in survival and success than in primitive times).

As a result, such a preference is highly likely to be “wired in” within women’s DNA.

So any time I see a survey like this one, I already know what the answer will be. And that makes such surveys pretty useless.

It’d be like asking people whether they prefer “pleasure” rather than “pain” (or “lots of money” rather than “no money”).

You would already know that most of those respondents would pick “pleasure” or “lots of money”.

There might be a few masochists or ascetics (or bored people trying to muck up your research) who would pick the other alternative, but the overall outcome would be entirely predictable here as well.

No surprises there either.

Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler

She lists six of the most common reasons that men typically give for faking an orgasm and notes (correctly) that these are pretty much the same reasons why women fake orgasms as well.

That shouldn’t be a surprise, as both genders often end up being unable to attract “the hottest of the hot” and as a result they end up settling for the best that they can get.

And that “consolation prize” may not be particularly exciting, especially compared to some of the unattainable eye candy which they see sauntering down the street every day.

That’s one reason why women close their eyes during sex and imagine that they are having sex with, say, Justin Timberlake rather than with the guy who is actually in bed with her.

And for the same reason men will often fantasize during sex that they’re making love to someone more exciting than the woman they’re actually with.

Why Not Just Be Honest?

So far, so good … but then Ms. Black begins wondering about what sorts of pressures men must be under which compel men to “fake it” rather than just say telling his partner candidly that he wants to stop having sex.

If you’re a man and are reading this, you probably already know the real answer to that question: (1) “faking it” avoids creating an ugly drama; and (2) it also reduces the chance of the woman in question deciding not to sleep with you again in the future, if you still can’t find someone better.

The “Patriarchy”???

Oddly enough, though, Ms. Black came up with a different answer:

“So what’s to blame for such dismal sexual experiences? Patriarchy, of course. Sexuality under patriarchy has long been known to penalize women.”

She continues:

“Bombarded with pornographic images, commercials touting erection-enhancing drugs like Viagra, and magazine articles about how to keep thrusting until she screams for mercy, men are under a tremendous amount of pressure to come hard, come fast, and give their partners orgasms so intense that plaster falls off the walls.”

Let’s think about that for a moment. Women fake orgasms even more often than men do and women list the same handful of reasons for doing so that men list.

Therefore, if men fake orgasms due to “the patriarchy” and bombardment with “pornographic images”, it would make equal sense to say that women fake orgasms due to “the matriarchy” and bombardment with boy bands and romance novels.

A More Plausible Explanation

The reality is that men lie to women – and women lie to men – for pretty much the same reason: because they expect their partner to react badly to the truth.

And why would they expect this to be the case? They have prior experience of seeing such adverse reactions in similar situations. And they can sense insecurity in their partner by the sorts of things that their partner asks them.

Personally, I’ve found that women’s willingness to be honest with me grew over the years in tandem with my own ability to “handle the truth” without my engaging in histrionics or otherwise reacting badly. And that is equally true in reverse.

If women were faking their orgasms with me, therefore, it would be mostly my own fault.

Teaching Your Partner to Fake Orgasms

After sex, have you ever grilled your partner about whether she came (and, if so, how many times)? If you did, then you were teaching her to fake orgasms with you.

The problem wasn’t her (she was behaving rationally under the circumstances) … the problem was you (for being so demonstrably insecure).

I grilled my partners that way early on when I was starting out and the results were predictable: (1) women in order to avoid a scene would assure me that they did come; and (2) many of them also moved on to someone else who was much less insecure when such an opportunity presented itself.

It works similarly in the opposite direction: If men are faking orgasms, much of the blame would fairly fall on women for not being able to “handle the truth”.

But there’s no mention of that in Ms. Black’s article … “men faking orgasms” is seen as being just a culturally induced male defect.

If the idea of her partner faking an occasional orgasm upsets a woman, she’d do better to look closely at the signals that she is sending him rather than bemoaning “the patriarchy”.

The first, she can change … the second (assuming that such a thing does actually exist), she can’t.

Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler