Yes, we know why too

He told The Daily Telegraph: “For reasons that are inexplicable, MPs – even the most superficial, unattractive, mis-shapen ones – are attractive to the other sex.”

Called \”alpha\”.

Those with power have it, those who are thought to have power have it, those who don\’t, don\’t.

Generally, but not exclusively, associated with men: alpha males are those who can command a disproportionate amount of society\’s resources so they obviously make a good bet for women looking for a gene donor.

Nothing in the slightest surprising about this, as remarkable as the peacock\’s tail, the bird\’s bower.

8 thoughts on “Yes, we know why too”

  1. I’d say it was gender specific enough to call it exclusively a man thing. Men just aren’t attracted by womens’ status and power. We’re just not that selfish and mercenary.

    “Is she hot?” and “does she have a nice personality?”. That’s it. Could be a cleaner or a CEO, makes no difference. Well, except that the CEO is probably going to be too busy and self absorbed to be much fun, so the cleaner is a better punt, all else being equal.

  2. Scientific proof, of course, might come from asking women to rate MPs by attractiveness before and after they’re booted from power by their constituents. Or, indeed, by asking them to rate LibDem MPs and ones that actually matter.

  3. @BenSix: I like the sound of that. Of course, merely being appointed PPC by a major political party confers immense social proof. One might do an experiment where three groups of women either
    1) see photographs of men,
    2) read a short scenario in which the man displayed socially dominant or submissive behaviour, or
    3) see both a randomly chosen photograph and a randomly chosen scenario
    and then rate for attractiveness for both casual sex and relationships. As a bonus experiment you could have six groups, three of which must come to a consensus about a ranked order of attractiveness, and three of which are interviewed individually.

    But yes, as IanB says, the “alpha female” is generally considered to be the one most physically attractive and feminine, rather than the most powerful. If you like, you might define it in terms of “the one most desired by men” but they amount to the same thing.

  4. Except the peacock’s tail theory of sexual attraction is a myth. Peahens will, more often than not, mate with a peacock whose display is slightly less spectacular. The peahen will see an alpha-male’s magnificent display, and admire it for a bit, but go for another. Vanity is no sure sign of security, as Shakespeare – and, it seems, peahens (but not alas, female humans) – recognise.

  5. Hmm. Then what does explain the peacock’s tail, and why do they display them if they’re not a turn-on? Seems a bit like saying, “the idea that breasts are attractive is a myth, because some males do not choose the female with the biggest breasts”.

  6. Hmm, Ian B.”Seems a bit like saying, “the idea that breasts are attractive is a myth, because some males do not choose the female with the biggest breasts”. Hmmm. Go to London Zoo and explain that to giraffes: the gayest animals we know of. Hmmm, Ian B: Please post a giraffe with breasts.
    Look: peacocks parade their tails for the same reason you wear those new jeans: there’s a new label on the outside, but it’s the same arsehole inside.
    I do not dispute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *