Episode Details

Dive into the fascinating world of “peacocking” with Malcolm and Simone Collins on this episode of Based Camp! From evolutionary biology to modern dating signals, we explore how men and women use costly displays—like flashy cars, makeup, or even leg-lengthening surgery—to attract partners. Discover why choosing a spouse based on looks is a hidden commitment, the history of male fashion from codpieces to high heels, and why both sexes peacock in unique ways today. We break down honest vs. dishonest signaling, why males are becoming more selective in long-term relationships, and real-world examples from seahorses to Genghis Khan. If you’re into red pill insights, cultural trends, or just want to understand the hidden dynamics of attraction, this is a must-watch!

Episode Notes

* Both men and women who choose spouses based on looks are both telling on themselves and implicitly committing to something without realizing it

* Basically, when you’re being choosy about partners, it’s because you implicitly understand (and may be signalling) that you’ll do most of the work and/or take on most of the risk

* To understand why this is the case, we need to look to peacocking and WHY animals (plus humans) do it

* We also need to understand how peacocking has evolved in the face of modernity and how we may need to disregard certain instincts because they were evolved for an old game and these days, many of the rules are TOTALLY different

Why Peacock?

Peacocking is required when the target market is selective (it’s obvious and universal—products only need branding and marketing in competitive markets with choices).

Female peacocking is necessary only when men get sexually selective.

There are three reasons why males get sexually selective:

* Males invest heavily in parental care (time, energy, or risk), so they can only mate with a limited number of females.

* For example, male seahorses, which carry and nourish the eggs in a brood pouch (a form of male pregnancy), are notably choosy about mates.

* Married fathers’ childcare time rose from about 2.6 hours per week in 1965 to about 7.2 hours per week in 2011 and 7.8-8 hours/week in 2020/2021 (with married fathers around 8 hours and college‑educated fathers about 10 hours per week.)

* In case comparison is desired: Married mothers’ time went from about 10.6 hours per week in 1965 to roughly 14.3 hours per week in 2011, and around 13.5–14 hours remains a standard estimate in the 2000s.

* There is large variation in female quality (for example, in fecundity, size, or health), making some females much more valuable mates than others.

* Male seahorses preferentially select larger females, as these tend to produce more or higher-quality eggs, leading to better offspring survival. Males have been observed rejecting smaller or less suitable females by breaking off courtship dances or swimming away, even when the females are receptive. This selectivity stems from the males’ limited brood pouch capacity and the high energy investment in pregnancy, making indiscriminate mating costly

* The St. Andrews experience

* The marriage-and-then-kids bait-and-switch

* In many fish and bird species with biparental care (for example, certain cichlid fishes and shorebirds), males court and mate preferentially with larger or more fecund females and may ignore smaller or otherwise low-quality females.

* Will men eventually look for signals of actual COMMITMENT to larger families?

* Mating itself is costly (risk of predation, energy loss, disease, increased risk from male-on-male competition), so mating “indiscriminately” reduces a male’s total lifetime reproductive success.

* Legal risk

* One major form of “predation” in the modern civilized world

* Financial risk

* A major form of energy loss

* Pair bonding?

* In