::: 271 :::
heterosexual couple, whereas for women it was the other way around. Third, women and men were both aroused by lesbian scenes, but neither was aroused by male homosexual sex.
(Remember, all these students were heterosexuaclass="underline" ) When watching pornography, men and women are both interested in the women actors. But porn is designed for, marketed to, and sought out by men, not women:"
The romance novel, by contrast, is aimed entirely at a female market. It, too, depicts a fictional world that has changed remarkably little except in adapting to female career ambitions and to a less inhibited attitude toward the description of sex. Authors adhere strictly to a formula provided by the publishers. Sexual acts play a small part in these novels; the bulk of each book is about love, commitment, domesticity, nurturing, and the formation of relationships. There is little promiscuity or sexual variety, and what sex there is, is described mainly through the heroine 's emotional reaction CO what is done to her—particularly the tactile things—
and not to any detailed description of the man 's body. His character is often discussed in detail but not his body: Ellis and Symons claim that the romance novel and pornography represent the respective utopian fantasies of the two sexes.
Their data on the sexual fantasies of California students would seem to support this contention: So does the repeated failure of magazines that try to repackage the male-porn formula for women (much
'
of Playgirl s readership is gay men), plus the burgeoning business of selling explicit novels about promiscuous sex at air-ports—for men: In any bookstore there are magazines for men with pictures of women on the covers, promising more inside, and magazines for women with pictures of women on the covers, promising hints about improving relationships inside. There are romance novels aimed at women with pictures of women on the covers and sexy novels aimed at men with pictures of women on the covers. The publishing industry, living by the market, not the prevailing ideology, has no doubts about the differences between men and women 's attitudes toward sex.
As Ellis and Symons put it,
::: 2'72:::
The Red Queen
The data on sexual fantasy reported here, the scientific literature on sexual fantasy, . : : the consumer-driven selective forces of a free market (which have shaped the historically stable contrasts between male-oriented pornography and female-oriented romance novels), the ethnographic record on human sexuality, and the ineluctable implications of an evolutionary perspective on our species, taken together, imply the existence of a profound sex difference in sexual psychology:"
This is a far more enlightened view than the peculiarly uncharitable assumption among the politically correct that the reason women are not more turned on by nudity and pornography is that they are repressed:
CHOOSY MEN
A paradox looms: Men are promiscuous opportunists at heart and in their fantasies: Truly promiscuous opportunists would not be too choosy, one would think: And yet men care about women 's looks more than women care about men ' s looks. A sports car and an expense account can turn a frog into a prince for women, but even a rich woman cannot afford to be ugly (although in these times of cosmetic surgery, she can sometimes afford the means not to be ugly): Advertisements for "escorts" emphasize looks. A man contemplating an affair should not restrict himself to what he considers a good-looking woman, yet he usually does. This is rather unusuaclass="underline" A male gorilla or sage grouse does not refuse to mate with a female because of her appearance: He takes every opportunity on offer regardless of looks. Polygamous despots of ancient times may have been promiscuous, but they were still choosy; their harems were always recruited from among the young, the virginal, and the beautiful.
The paradox is soluble. The degree to which an animal of either sex is choosy correlates exactly with the degree to which it SEXING THE MIND
::: 273 :::
invests in parental care. A black grouse, investing no more than sperm, is prepared to copulate with anything that even resembles a female: A stuffed bird or a model will do:'° A male albatross, who will put all his best efforts into raising one female 's young, is elaborately suspicious and selective, striving for the best female on offer. So man's choosiness reflects once more the fact that man does indeed form a pair bond and invest in his young, unlike some of his undiscriminating ape cousins: It is a legacy of his past monogamy: Choose well, for it may be the only chance you will get.
Indeed, the overwhelming fascination of men with female youth argues that pair bonds have lasted lifetimes. In this we are quite unlike any other mammaclass="underline" Chimpanzees find old females just as attractive as young ones as long as both are in estrus. The fact that men do prefer twenty-year-olds adds one piece of evidence to the theory that a Pleistocene man, like a rpodern man, married for life.
Anthropologist Helen Fisher has argued that there is a natural term to marriage, which is why divorce rates peak after four years of marriage. Four years is long enough to rear a single child beyond utter dependence, and Fisher believes that when each child reached four, Pleistocene women sought a fresh husband for the next child. She argues that therefore divorce is natural. But there are several problems with her case: The four-year peak is merely what statisticians call a mode and not a very prominent one at that: Divorce rates are bound to peak in one of the years after marriage.
Moreover, her theory sits oddly alongside the fact that men consistently prefer younger women and that husbands contribute to their children's rearing long after the children reach four: A woman who divorced her husband four years after the birth of every child would be less attractive to new men every time, not only because she would be older but because she would bring a growing retinue of stepchildren: The male preference for young mates implies lifelong mateships."
Even the most cursory inspection of the personal advertisements in a newspaper confirms what we all know: that men seek younger wives and women seek older husbands—despite the fact that they will almost certainly outlive them by a decade or more. In
::: 274:::
The Red Queen
his survey Buss found that men seek women of about twenty-five, slightly past their maximum reproductive potential (they have already missed several breeding years) but close to their period of maximum fertility: However, this result may be misleading, as two of those commenting on Buss 's data have suggested: First, as Don Symons points out, a twenty-five-year-old modern Westerner shows probably as much wear and tear as a twenty-year-old tribal woman: When asked what women they prefer, Yanomamo men do not hesitate to say moko dude women, meaning those between puberty and first child: Other things being equal, that is also the Western man's ideal.42
RACISM AND SEXISM
This chapter, obsessed with differences between the sexes, has ignored the differences between races, yet they are often thrown together in the demonology of modern prejudice. In an extraordinary equation, to insist on sexual differences is to insist on racial differences, too. Sexism is the sister of racism. I confess to being baffled by this. I think it is easy and, given the evidence, rational to believe that the differences between the natures of men of different races are trivial, while the differences between the natures of men and women of the same race are considerable.