Costly signaling
I always love these articles about “costly signaling” — the pursuit of real, not-fakable signals of your mating fitness. Take a look at Sex and shopping – it’s a guy thing - New Scientist (emphasis mine):
The results here were equally clear: men in the mating condition, compared with the non-mating condition, said they would spend more money on the conspicuous luxuries, and that they would actually spend less on the inconspicuous necessities; there was no effect on female consumption decisions. In contrast, women in the mating condition, compared with those in the non-mating condition, said they would spend more time on conspicuous pro-social volunteering, but no more time on the inconspicuous pro-social activities. Again, there was no effect on male volunteering.
In the age of advanced makeup and cosmetic surgery, physical fitness is still a great example of costly signaling. Consider men: “Hey look, I have the time, money, baseline health, and motivation to take care of my body” is quite obvious to even the casual observer and can not be faked by gastric bypass weight loss surgery. Or consider this: ownership of expensive things can not be faked… at least not in the long run. For women: you can’t fake volunteering — it’s a binary thing, you’re either out there or you aren’t.
I don’t think the conclusions of these four studies should be taken as final, gospel truth, but they are a good starting point for thinking about the different ways women and men signal one another. A particularly interesting conclusion from one of the studies: women looking for a short term relationship are swayed by the car a man drives, but those looking for a long term partner tend not to care about the care he drives.