You can be thoughtful and accommodating without being a doormat which is what you appear to be alluding to.

Breaking this down to an evolutionary biology standpoint, what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman? It has the opposite effect on the intended outcomes, that of security and stability from which to raise offspring.

The whole treat em mean, keep them keen mentality might work in the short term and get you laid but a happy productive relationship it will not build. Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.

It leads her to believe your genetic material is of a higher quality than she could normally gain access to.

Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.

Sometimes. But that's a better outcome than if she stays with you and goes elsewhere for higher quality genetic material, which is far more common than most people believe.

n = 1, but this has worked for me. Deliberately act like you can take it or leave it, and you're unlikely to be left. (And note that women initiate the majority of breakups and divorces, so you're not risking much if you risk a breakup.)

We aren't talking about dating here, we are talking about long term relationships. The whole Red Queen thing breaks down when we add artificial human constructs such as marriage and monogamy.

We are not a Silver Back leading a band of gorillas, we are far more complex than that. Sure, signalling plays a roll in initial conditions, impressions and attractiveness. However once we get past the monkey brain and into the far more complex social behaviors humans have developed there aren't just a couple of sliders to adjust to determine how successful a relationship is.

I would love to hear of anyone having a successful and above all healthy long term relationship using the ideas you espouse.

You are confusing normative and positive claims.

Genetic expression and disposition toward gene-propagating behaviors do not cease to operate, no matter how far removed we think we are from the "lowly" Silverback.

Your other points regarding human social behaviors are being quite a bit more complex than that of gorillas is correct, but I don't think recognition of that fact is sufficient basis for assuming that all other factors are suddenly irrelevant.

My original response to the whole "treat em mean, keep em keen" comment in fact makes a reverse argument using evolutionary biology. That is that this sort of behavior actually precludes building a successful relationship as the woman doesn't get the security she needs to raise her offspring.

Empirically, prior girlfriends have been unimpressed with my slavish devotion to their every-moment's well-being. My current girlfriend is much more devoted, and much more enthusiastic.

I am fairly overt about this. I told her to read The Red Queen after our first date. And I don't lie about this. But when I'm asking myself what's better for the relationship, and what's going to make the person I'm with happier, I have to take into account that my behavior affects her happiness indirectly, too. You'd have to be a real jerk to make her date a nebbish.

I'd suggest reading the book cited by the grandparent. You're a little naive on the topic. The vast majority of women marry for social or financial status, but it's an unconscious mechanism.

In the end, it's all about optimizing genetic fitness and resource availability. Our genes do this automatically, and it's not limited to humans.

Are you saying that the book cites research to backup these extraordinary claims? While I'm little more than a dilettante, I can't see how I could completely avoid hearing that a social behavior as complex as marriage had been pinned to genetics.

What I've heard is that surveys have shown women will find a man more attractive if they believe he's wealthy. I have not seen it shown that this is wholly unconscious, let alone genetic (rather than cultural). And I have not seen it claimed that this effect dictates why women marry particular men.

You're slaving away in a startup, working insane hours and getting paid way less than what you're worth. There's equity in there somewhere. Maybe. You've finished up another 12 hour day and there's the wife glaring at you at the kitchen table: "When is this job going to get us somewhere? Why can't we be doing/having <x> like your friend Bob who works at <consulting firm y>?"

The social status thing makes sense. And you're working your ass off to try to make that next step up, or cash out, or whatever.

So what do you tell her in return?

It's a fairly well established biological fact( caveat - there are of course exceptions )that female primates, including humans, respond sexually favorably toward high status behavior on the part of males.

The Red Queen is a good book, but there are countless others. Sperm Wars, Sex At Dawn, The Evolution of Desire, and myriad academic papers that these books reference, paint a very clear picture of female sexuality that few will ever want to believe.

n=1 is irrelevant in this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the actual scientific evidence is quite clear on this matter.

Edit: removed reference to emo hipsters. Not constructive.

In particular, there is plenty of room in evo-psych for pair bonding and long term relationships. Historically and across diverse cultures these relationships have generally been the dominant method of producing children, so I'd say it's a pretty OK evolutionary strategy. The 'scientific' evidence is all around you, evolved bag of meat.

And in long term relationships, effort is not optional.

There's a big difference between optimizing behavior when you're single and trying to score as much as possible vs being in a relationship and trying to optimize your relations with that one particular person. You're no longer dealing with a population.

No offence, but if you actually had the facts on your side you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to insulting everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Emo hipsters, really?

He's talking about statistical distributions. "It's an established fact that six-year-olds are taller than five-year-olds. There are exceptions."

I'm not sure where he got the "hipster" stuff, though.

Re: fat nerds and social value:

In 2011, "fat nerds" can wield quite a bit of financial power. This can make them attractive to females by virtue of the fact that they can be utilized as resource providers for their future offspring.

However, it should be noted that sexual attraction and attraction to resources are generally two independent drives in female primates. Many female primates utilize independent strategies, procuring resources and genetic material from different men simultaneously. See the citations in "Sperm Wars" for references to the research on this phenomenon.

While that's true, "fat nerds" (or skinny nerds, or greasy nerds) don't generally do things which display this power. I've met nerds who are effectively retired at 30, fat and happy, who are entirely off the radar of women looking at suits, cars, and Stanford MBA attitudes.

My point is that even though socially we understand that "nerds" have good odds of being reasonably affluent, there's still an awful lot to the "sexy" equation that they don't have.

I hate this phrase, it's the battle cry of those who do whatever their wife says and laugh with their buddies about how whipped they are. Marriage is a balancing act. Of course you have to change and give in where appropriate but if you do everything she says she wants you will lower her opinion of you (as it should, since you're a coward).

-- Socrates

But way to read too far into a silly little phrase and call me a coward, Mr. Anonymous Internet Man.

Not in my experience.

As for your "happy wife = happy life" theory, I'd strongly suggest running very fast away from women who implement this theory. You don't want people in your life who will drag you down to their level.

if she responds the way you're implying - I'm sorry, something is probably wrong with her.

In that case, something is probably wrong with most women.

It is known that in general, women respond most to emotional stimulation and men respond to sex. When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.

However, many people fake the "happy me = happy you" by making you unhappy. That is often within their power to do. Then they give you respite when you do what they want. If you don't know better, you might mistake this for happiness. From what I've seen, this is how "happy wife = happy life" (or in it's more honest form, "if momma aint happy, nobody ain't happy") is usually implemented.

When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.

It might be a win-win for you, but many people dislike trading labor/money/etc for sex (even when the trade is implicit). Personally, I prefer sex which is freely given for the sole purpose of mutual pleasure.

Reading a book won't reverse decades of cultural conditioning.

I recommend getting a Brazilian or Colombian wife instead.