A colleague accuses me of getting evolutionary principles wrong. We are arguing over whether women’s unavailability increases men’s interest, and whether women really use it that way. In fact, these are two disputes rolled into one: whether this pattern exists at all and, if it does, whether it stems from having been evolutionarily advantageous in the past. Nobody can say whether it is evolutionarily advantageous today.
First, then, we have to establish whether the pattern occurs at all. That is an interesting dispute in its own right. When it comes to relations between men and women, we all tend to think we know how things work in real life and how women behave toward men—and vice versa. But what if, in a discussion, we run into someone who claims that things work in an entirely different way? That kind of dispute is not easy to settle, because we all move in somewhat different circles (my colleague is ten to fifteen years younger), and because two people can perceive the same situation differently.
Behind this lies a more general and fundamental question: how much of my personal experience is exceptional, and how much reflects a prevailing pattern?
Ideally, we have statistics. If statistics are unavailable, then at least some studies. What do the studies say?
First, when women are scarce and men are plentiful in a given setting, women can form a cartel and raise the price. Strict moral standards are the cartel’s tool. When men are scarce and women plentiful, this does not work, and women start competing by lowering their price. In this sense, we can understand the gender-related theatrics on college campuses, for example, as a desperate attempt to raise the price at least a little.
Second, a common female strategy is this: I’m unavailable to everyone else, but you’re special. If you try hard enough, you can have this rare thing. But in an environment full of aggressive advances, even this may not work.
Third, another possible strategy is to arouse desire, pull back, then arouse it again. The result, however, is often that the man becomes increasingly sexually interested in the woman while growing less fond of her. So it is not a suitable strategy for building a long-term relationship.
Fourth, it is also true that in the overwhelming majority of cases, women’s rejection is selective. It applies to men who fall below a certain level.
Each of these studies measures the response of a particular group. It would therefore be unwise to claim that the findings apply to everyone in the Western world, let alone to the whole world. We cannot be certain. Still, the preliminary picture suggests that the female strategy described above either does not occur or is rare. There is therefore little point in investigating its evolutionary significance.