Hero Archetypes in Shag, Shoot or Marry?

I’ve worked at a number of London ad agencies and can confidently say that the one thing they’ve had in common is a dedication, in their downtime, to the forced choice game Shag, Shoot or Marry?. It needs little explanation: three people are presented to a player and they have to assign a fate to each.

As we’re in the throes of the silly season, it seems appropriately inappropriate to discuss the appeal of this peculiar obsession. Why it should be so popular (or rather, prevalent, being reviled as much as it's relished) in London, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's an outlet for the more reserved, understated types to unleash their inner sex god.

It’s a social game and Advertising is a social industry. It’s a mating game and Advertising has its fair share of flirting. It’s amenable to cultural adaptation, which is a prerequisite of any self-respecting entertainment property in a customisable world. For example, it’s also known as The Cliff Game to those who'd rather push than fire guns. Punch, Pash or Partner is the chosen vernacular on Australian Big Brother Friday Night Live.

In keeping with another media trend, the game is a transmedia property. It also exists as a board game (Marry, Date or Dump), a radio gameshow on Howard Stern in the US and now a Facebook widget (Bed, Wed or Dead), so you can torment your friends. Clearly, the caper is well adjusted to the digital ‘Noughties’, as this decade is known, apparently.

But, I suggest, the real reason behind the game’s popularity lies in its pandering to the tensions inherent in the optimal mating strategies of men and women. It delivers vicariously the highs and lows of the dating game, like a potted version of Gossip Girl, or Entourage. Short-term vs. long-term strategies are in evidence.

Darwin’s theory of sexual selection holds that, for men and women, the greater the ‘investment in offspring’, the choosier the subject is when selecting a partner. In contrast, casual sex is chosen to be more promiscuous and competitive, in other words, trophy dates.

In The Evolution of Desire, D. M. Buss outlines the theory that for short-term affairs, women should opt for fit, dominant men, or ‘cads’ (purveyors of good genes), whereas marriage candidates should include nurturing men, or ‘dads’ (purveyors of care and resources).

According to academics at the University of Michigan’s Institute of Social Research, the two kinds of men correspond to archetypes of heroes in romantic fiction. One is the daring, promiscuous ‘dark hero’, or outlaw; the other is the kindly ‘proper hero’.

In their study, which exposed female undergraduates to the characters via passages from romantic novels, women said they’d prefer the dark heroes for short relationships, but found the proper heroes more likeable - candidates for marriage. The shorter the relationship, the greater was their preference for dark heroes.

The Hero and the Outlaw are also Jungian Brand Archetypes. I wonder if the game would have the same appeal if applied to suitable brands? …I’ll go find that cliff.