The paper evokes images of a generic courtroom drama in which the prosecutor asks a witness whether he had a romantic relationship with the defendant. He vehemently denies it. The prosecutor insists: “but you went on vacations together, had weekend getaways, and had overnight visits twice weekly for several months.” The witness agrees. The prosecutor continues: “Yet you testify that you did not have a romantic relationship with the defendant. Would you care to explain this inconsistency?” The witness replies: “No inconsistency, sir. She often told me, even while in bed, that I was the least romantic man she had ever met.”
From the first line of the paper to the last paragraph, the authors use the term “romantic,” but do not define it. Sometimes it seems the term is being used euphemistically instead of “sex,” but at other times, it seems that authors rely on a more strict definition. In any case, each of the 4 premises about romance can be explained more parsimoniously by the most basic principles of sexual selection and by peculiarities of family law in WEIRD societies (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic).
Men seek romance more than women do
The desire for sex is a more parsimonious explanation. In all species, not just humans, fitness is maximized in females by increasing the quality of their partners and in males by increasing the quantity of partners. This difference is a basic consequence of anisogamy, which defines the sexes and hence has been around since the two sexes first evolved (Bell, Reference Bell1982).
Also, the words “sex” and “gender” are not interchangeable. Sex refers to gamete size, and there are only two: large (eggs) and small (sperm). Often there is no functional difference, but sometimes, two or more genders can occur within a sex (Lozano & Ros, Reference Lozano and Ros2022).
Men benefit more than women from romantic relationships
Two separate issues are addressed: emotional support and unequal division of labor at home.
Men do have fewer extra-pair friends and confidants, and hence rely on their sexual partners for emotional support. However, maybe men just do not need as much emotional support as women do. Without delving here in the nature/nurture debate, it is well known that men are less emotional than women, both in terms of feeling those emotions and expressing them. Actually, selection can only act upon external manifestations of emotions, their expression (Darwin, Reference Darwin1872).
Subsequently, the authors address household contributions, a discussion that is completely backwards. Actually, men benefit extensively by just cleaning up after themselves, a fact well supported by personal experience, anecdotal accounts, and historical literature. I will leave the first two up to the readers’ individual experiences and discussion with their spouses. More poignantly, ancient writings from a variety of cultures depict women as agents of chaos (Vajskop, Reference Vajskop2005). Today, a common reason women have for breakups is that the man was “too controlling.” Finally, the entire discussion about household chores ignores men’s financial contributions; if they become single and manage to keep all their resources, they could easily afford to hire a maid.
Men are less likely than women to initiate breakups
This is clearly true, but more parsimonious explanations exist.
First, for most of our existence, we have lived among small groups of people whom we have known our entire lives. Life was short and women had few choices in partners. Any woman who spent decades seeking the right partner left no descendants.
Our lifespans have increased steadily over the millennia and, due to medicine, sharply over the past 75 years. Our social circles have also increased over the millennia and, due to the internet, sharply over the past 40 years. The actual number of men suitable for marriage for women might not have changed much, but to women, it seems like they now have thousands of options and decades to choose and change their choices.
Second, married women in WEIRD societies receive financial rewards for leaving a marriage. Upon divorce, men can end up losing half of all their worldly possessions, and are usually required to keep paying their former spouses for many years thereafter, sometimes for life. In essence, Trivers’ “cruel bind” (Trivers, Reference Trivers and Campbell1972) is not retrospective but rather prospective and applies almost exclusively to men. Laws in WEIRD societies discourage men from leaving a marriage and encourage women to do so.
Third, in WEIRD societies, the provisioning of children is not the sole responsibility of custodial parent. A woman knows that if a man, married or divorced, is unable to provide for his children, society will help. Why should a woman put all her eggs in one basket, one man?
Men suffer more after a breakup
Well, yes, but maybe it is because upon divorce in WEIRD societies, men lose half their wealth to the spouse, lose custody of and sometimes access to their children, and continue supporting their spouse long after the marriage has ended, sometimes for life. For men, prosperity after divorce is a luxury reserved for wealthy men.
Conclusion
The paper paints women as being unromantic, but readers ought not to arrive at that conclusion. Living organisms react and adapt to their environment. WEIRD societies are vastly different from the conditions in which humans evolved. In ancient times, the four premises would have been more applicable to women. Using the strict meaning of the word “romance”, women were more likely to seek actual romance, benefit more from it, be faithful to their romantic partners, and suffer more if the romantic relationship ended.
Much of this discussion hinges on the lack of a distinction by the authors between a “romantic” and a “sexual” relationship. The terms are not interchangeable. Euphemisms are great in love songs, but are perhaps not as useful in formal studies of sexual relationships that include long-term pairings and opportunistic copulations. The first verse of the 1986 song “Lady in Red,” written and performed by Chris de Burgh, explains it very well:
“I’ve never seen so many men ask you if you wanted to dance,
looking for a little romance, given half a chance.”
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
You have
Access
The paper evokes images of a generic courtroom drama in which the prosecutor asks a witness whether he had a romantic relationship with the defendant. He vehemently denies it. The prosecutor insists: “but you went on vacations together, had weekend getaways, and had overnight visits twice weekly for several months.” The witness agrees. The prosecutor continues: “Yet you testify that you did not have a romantic relationship with the defendant. Would you care to explain this inconsistency?” The witness replies: “No inconsistency, sir. She often told me, even while in bed, that I was the least romantic man she had ever met.”
From the first line of the paper to the last paragraph, the authors use the term “romantic,” but do not define it. Sometimes it seems the term is being used euphemistically instead of “sex,” but at other times, it seems that authors rely on a more strict definition. In any case, each of the 4 premises about romance can be explained more parsimoniously by the most basic principles of sexual selection and by peculiarities of family law in WEIRD societies (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic).
Men seek romance more than women do
The desire for sex is a more parsimonious explanation. In all species, not just humans, fitness is maximized in females by increasing the quality of their partners and in males by increasing the quantity of partners. This difference is a basic consequence of anisogamy, which defines the sexes and hence has been around since the two sexes first evolved (Bell, Reference Bell1982).
Also, the words “sex” and “gender” are not interchangeable. Sex refers to gamete size, and there are only two: large (eggs) and small (sperm). Often there is no functional difference, but sometimes, two or more genders can occur within a sex (Lozano & Ros, Reference Lozano and Ros2022).
Men benefit more than women from romantic relationships
Two separate issues are addressed: emotional support and unequal division of labor at home.
Men do have fewer extra-pair friends and confidants, and hence rely on their sexual partners for emotional support. However, maybe men just do not need as much emotional support as women do. Without delving here in the nature/nurture debate, it is well known that men are less emotional than women, both in terms of feeling those emotions and expressing them. Actually, selection can only act upon external manifestations of emotions, their expression (Darwin, Reference Darwin1872).
Subsequently, the authors address household contributions, a discussion that is completely backwards. Actually, men benefit extensively by just cleaning up after themselves, a fact well supported by personal experience, anecdotal accounts, and historical literature. I will leave the first two up to the readers’ individual experiences and discussion with their spouses. More poignantly, ancient writings from a variety of cultures depict women as agents of chaos (Vajskop, Reference Vajskop2005). Today, a common reason women have for breakups is that the man was “too controlling.” Finally, the entire discussion about household chores ignores men’s financial contributions; if they become single and manage to keep all their resources, they could easily afford to hire a maid.
Men are less likely than women to initiate breakups
This is clearly true, but more parsimonious explanations exist.
First, for most of our existence, we have lived among small groups of people whom we have known our entire lives. Life was short and women had few choices in partners. Any woman who spent decades seeking the right partner left no descendants.
Our lifespans have increased steadily over the millennia and, due to medicine, sharply over the past 75 years. Our social circles have also increased over the millennia and, due to the internet, sharply over the past 40 years. The actual number of men suitable for marriage for women might not have changed much, but to women, it seems like they now have thousands of options and decades to choose and change their choices.
Second, married women in WEIRD societies receive financial rewards for leaving a marriage. Upon divorce, men can end up losing half of all their worldly possessions, and are usually required to keep paying their former spouses for many years thereafter, sometimes for life. In essence, Trivers’ “cruel bind” (Trivers, Reference Trivers and Campbell1972) is not retrospective but rather prospective and applies almost exclusively to men. Laws in WEIRD societies discourage men from leaving a marriage and encourage women to do so.
Third, in WEIRD societies, the provisioning of children is not the sole responsibility of custodial parent. A woman knows that if a man, married or divorced, is unable to provide for his children, society will help. Why should a woman put all her eggs in one basket, one man?
Men suffer more after a breakup
Well, yes, but maybe it is because upon divorce in WEIRD societies, men lose half their wealth to the spouse, lose custody of and sometimes access to their children, and continue supporting their spouse long after the marriage has ended, sometimes for life. For men, prosperity after divorce is a luxury reserved for wealthy men.
Conclusion
The paper paints women as being unromantic, but readers ought not to arrive at that conclusion. Living organisms react and adapt to their environment. WEIRD societies are vastly different from the conditions in which humans evolved. In ancient times, the four premises would have been more applicable to women. Using the strict meaning of the word “romance”, women were more likely to seek actual romance, benefit more from it, be faithful to their romantic partners, and suffer more if the romantic relationship ended.
Much of this discussion hinges on the lack of a distinction by the authors between a “romantic” and a “sexual” relationship. The terms are not interchangeable. Euphemisms are great in love songs, but are perhaps not as useful in formal studies of sexual relationships that include long-term pairings and opportunistic copulations. The first verse of the 1986 song “Lady in Red,” written and performed by Chris de Burgh, explains it very well:
“I’ve never seen so many men ask you if you wanted to dance,
looking for a little romance, given half a chance.”
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests
The author declares none.