20 Jan 2012, 11:20 am
20 Jan 2012, 11:22 am
20 Jan 2012, 11:46 am
20 Jan 2012, 11:49 am
20 Jan 2012, 1:05 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
...and status symbols 
Not that I wan't want to stereotype, but social status is an important attribute for a man who wants to attract women. Most women are hypergynous, meaning they are (often subconsciously) looking for a partner who has a slightly higher social status than themselves. Or at least not a lower status.
Not that I wan't want to stereotype, but social status is an important attribute for a man who wants to attract women. Most women are hypergynous, meaning they are (often subconsciously) looking for a partner who has a slightly higher social status than themselves. Or at least not a lower status.i haven't observed that phenomenon. do you have a source on that? from what i've read both men and women tend to date and marry others of similar socioeconomic and education levels.
Here is a research paper that references several studies on gender differences in human mate selection:
http://psyencelab.com/images/Human_Mate ... proach.pdf
Quote:
... the Buss and Barnes (1986) study ... found that there were three major areas where men and women significantly differed; men favored physical attractiveness more, whereas women preferred education and earning capacity.
... Kenrick et al. (1990) found that, like the Buss and Barnes (1986) study, women exhibited a much greater preference for elements related to status, while men preferred physical attractiveness.
... choices made by female judges from the Cunningham et al. (1990) study can be linked to a greater number of underlying mate characteristics, such as power, status, maturity, and sociability.
... Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, and Stone (2001) ... examined how different degrees of wealth affected women’s judgments of a man’s desirability. Results showed that women judged men to be progressively more desirable as personal wealth increased ...
A woman’s value as a mate has been linked through both the social and evolutionary perspectives to age and physical attractiveness, whereas a man’s value is determined through wealth and status.
... Kenrick et al. (1990) found that, like the Buss and Barnes (1986) study, women exhibited a much greater preference for elements related to status, while men preferred physical attractiveness.
... choices made by female judges from the Cunningham et al. (1990) study can be linked to a greater number of underlying mate characteristics, such as power, status, maturity, and sociability.
... Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, and Stone (2001) ... examined how different degrees of wealth affected women’s judgments of a man’s desirability. Results showed that women judged men to be progressively more desirable as personal wealth increased ...
A woman’s value as a mate has been linked through both the social and evolutionary perspectives to age and physical attractiveness, whereas a man’s value is determined through wealth and status.
And here is a link to the Buss and Barnes study referenced above:
http://www.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdf
Quote:
... access to resources provided by monetary power can contribute (a) immediate material advantages of offspring, (b) enhanced reproductive advantage provided to the offspring through acquired social and economic advantages, and (c) genetic reproductive advantages provided for offspring if the qualities that contribute to earning power are partly genetically based.
In principle, this form of reproductive investment could be provided by either men or women. However, two considerations make this form of reproductive investment more characteristic of men. First, men tend to have greater access to monetary resources than do women. Second, and perhaps more important, there is greater variance among men than among women in their possession of this resource. Both considerations lead to the prediction that women will place greater importance on this cue to reproductive investment than will men.
... Because a woman's fertility and reproductive value are more closely tied to age and health, men value female beauty because it signifies relative youth and hence reproductive fertility. In contrast, a selective advantage has been given to women who have preferences for men who can provide the environmental and genetic investments that are associated with strong earning power (see D. M. Buss for ... empirical examination of these hypotheses).
In principle, this form of reproductive investment could be provided by either men or women. However, two considerations make this form of reproductive investment more characteristic of men. First, men tend to have greater access to monetary resources than do women. Second, and perhaps more important, there is greater variance among men than among women in their possession of this resource. Both considerations lead to the prediction that women will place greater importance on this cue to reproductive investment than will men.
... Because a woman's fertility and reproductive value are more closely tied to age and health, men value female beauty because it signifies relative youth and hence reproductive fertility. In contrast, a selective advantage has been given to women who have preferences for men who can provide the environmental and genetic investments that are associated with strong earning power (see D. M. Buss for ... empirical examination of these hypotheses).
Women often point out that they value physical beauty as much as men do. As the first paper mentions, the above criteria only apply to long-term relationship investment and commitment. When it comes to short-term relationships such as one-night stands, both genders are mainly looking for eye candy:
Quote:
Kenrick et al. (1990; 1993) found that men and women are actually more similar in how much they value physical attractiveness in a mate at certain levels of relationship investment. Specifically, at the one-night stand and sexual relationship levels, the sexual differentiation effect nearly disappeared and both men and women valued high attractiveness for potential sexual partners.
Nowadays, there is less socio-economic pressure to engage in a long-term relationship / marriage. As a result, we are at liberty to "try before we buy". I suppose that many long-term relationships initially start out as low investment relationships in which physical attraction was the main selection criterion for both partners. In other words, the fact that we can end non-marital relationships without taking an economic hit, and that almost all unions start out as non-marital, could make our partner selection criteria more gender-equal.
Besides, the percentage of female academics as well as female job opportunities and income levels have greatly increased since Buss and Barnes conducted their research. Their assessment that "men tend to have greater access to monetary resources" is less true nowadays than it was back in the 1980s.
Still, 200,000 years of Homo sapiens evolution, and millions of years of hominin evolution prior to that, probably trump the socio-economic gender equality progress made in recent decades. Most men are still shallow enough to value looks more than anything else, and I suppose that many women are still subconsciously looking for providers. But I'm male, so I can only speak with relative certainty for my side in the battle of the sexes
(One thing I've noticed in myself is that mate selection criteria change with age. Attractiveness becomes less of a factor, while personality as well as shared views and interests gain importance. But for me, the most important criterion has always been bad taste or "who could probably want someone like me", so I'm not entirely sure that I can even speak for my own gender here
).
20 Jan 2012, 1:14 pm
20 Jan 2012, 1:37 pm
20 Jan 2012, 1:42 pm
20 Jan 2012, 1:46 pm
20 Jan 2012, 1:55 pm
Fnord wrote:
Guys are icky. I should know, since I am one.
I'm not
I guess that's another thing that changes with advancing age. Especially dental hygiene improves with age according to studies, and that's certainly been the case for me. But also things like skin care and body hair trimming / removal. Ok, that's probably too much information now 
I suppose it's also the spirit of the times. Men are nowadays expected to care more about their looks. Everybody is dieting and working out (I need to work on that part) and getting pedicures and skin peelings... I don't take it that far and probably couldn't afford it, but if I was dating I'd try to keep up with the competition.
20 Jan 2012, 2:05 pm
CrazyStarlightRedux
Veteran
Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,028
Location: Manchester, UK.
20 Jan 2012, 2:22 pm
20 Jan 2012, 2:45 pm
CrazyCatLord wrote:
If "gay" includes "lesbian", the answer is yes. The DNA of any human cell can be injected into an ovum (that's how cloning is performed, afaik). One would extract the DNA of a skin cell taken from one partner and extract an ovum from the other partner. The skin cell DNA is then used to fertilize the ovum, which is subsequently transferred to one partner's uterus.
A male same-sex couple (who can't or doesn't want to adopt) would require the services of a surrogate mother, so in that case only one partner can be the biological parent. But there is the possibility to place the ovum in a petri dish together with the sperm of both partners, so that both men have an equal chance to father the child. If they look similar, they will never have to know who of them is the biological father and can both develop the same level of attachment to the infant.
(This is why I love science btw).
A male same-sex couple (who can't or doesn't want to adopt) would require the services of a surrogate mother, so in that case only one partner can be the biological parent. But there is the possibility to place the ovum in a petri dish together with the sperm of both partners, so that both men have an equal chance to father the child. If they look similar, they will never have to know who of them is the biological father and can both develop the same level of attachment to the infant.
(This is why I love science btw).
Interesting. I can't be a lesbian but, so this doesn't apply to me. And if I had a child, I would want it to inherit genes from both me and my partner, and not some random surrogate mother.
This is all beside the point though, I'm not gay and I don't plan to turn gay anytime soon.
20 Jan 2012, 6:42 pm
20 Jan 2012, 11:20 pm
CrazyCatLord wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
...and status symbols Not that I wan't want to stereotype, but social status is an important attribute for a man who wants to attract women. Most women are hypergynous, meaning they are (often subconsciously) looking for a partner who has a slightly higher social status than themselves. Or at least not a lower status.
Not that I wan't want to stereotype, but social status is an important attribute for a man who wants to attract women. Most women are hypergynous, meaning they are (often subconsciously) looking for a partner who has a slightly higher social status than themselves. Or at least not a lower status.i haven't observed that phenomenon. do you have a source on that? from what i've read both men and women tend to date and marry others of similar socioeconomic and education levels.
Here is a research paper that references several studies on gender differences in human mate selection:
http://psyencelab.com/images/Human_Mate ... proach.pdf
Quote:
... the Buss and Barnes (1986) study ... found that there were three major areas where men and women significantly differed; men favored physical attractiveness more, whereas women preferred education and earning capacity.
... Kenrick et al. (1990) found that, like the Buss and Barnes (1986) study, women exhibited a much greater preference for elements related to status, while men preferred physical attractiveness.
... choices made by female judges from the Cunningham et al. (1990) study can be linked to a greater number of underlying mate characteristics, such as power, status, maturity, and sociability.
... Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, and Stone (2001) ... examined how different degrees of wealth affected women’s judgments of a man’s desirability. Results showed that women judged men to be progressively more desirable as personal wealth increased ...
A woman’s value as a mate has been linked through both the social and evolutionary perspectives to age and physical attractiveness, whereas a man’s value is determined through wealth and status.
... Kenrick et al. (1990) found that, like the Buss and Barnes (1986) study, women exhibited a much greater preference for elements related to status, while men preferred physical attractiveness.
... choices made by female judges from the Cunningham et al. (1990) study can be linked to a greater number of underlying mate characteristics, such as power, status, maturity, and sociability.
... Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, and Stone (2001) ... examined how different degrees of wealth affected women’s judgments of a man’s desirability. Results showed that women judged men to be progressively more desirable as personal wealth increased ...
A woman’s value as a mate has been linked through both the social and evolutionary perspectives to age and physical attractiveness, whereas a man’s value is determined through wealth and status.
And here is a link to the Buss and Barnes study referenced above:
http://www.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdf
Quote:
... access to resources provided by monetary power can contribute (a) immediate material advantages of offspring, (b) enhanced reproductive advantage provided to the offspring through acquired social and economic advantages, and (c) genetic reproductive advantages provided for offspring if the qualities that contribute to earning power are partly genetically based.
In principle, this form of reproductive investment could be provided by either men or women. However, two considerations make this form of reproductive investment more characteristic of men. First, men tend to have greater access to monetary resources than do women. Second, and perhaps more important, there is greater variance among men than among women in their possession of this resource. Both considerations lead to the prediction that women will place greater importance on this cue to reproductive investment than will men.
... Because a woman's fertility and reproductive value are more closely tied to age and health, men value female beauty because it signifies relative youth and hence reproductive fertility. In contrast, a selective advantage has been given to women who have preferences for men who can provide the environmental and genetic investments that are associated with strong earning power (see D. M. Buss for ... empirical examination of these hypotheses).
In principle, this form of reproductive investment could be provided by either men or women. However, two considerations make this form of reproductive investment more characteristic of men. First, men tend to have greater access to monetary resources than do women. Second, and perhaps more important, there is greater variance among men than among women in their possession of this resource. Both considerations lead to the prediction that women will place greater importance on this cue to reproductive investment than will men.
... Because a woman's fertility and reproductive value are more closely tied to age and health, men value female beauty because it signifies relative youth and hence reproductive fertility. In contrast, a selective advantage has been given to women who have preferences for men who can provide the environmental and genetic investments that are associated with strong earning power (see D. M. Buss for ... empirical examination of these hypotheses).
Women often point out that they value physical beauty as much as men do. As the first paper mentions, the above criteria only apply to long-term relationship investment and commitment. When it comes to short-term relationships such as one-night stands, both genders are mainly looking for eye candy:
Quote:
Kenrick et al. (1990; 1993) found that men and women are actually more similar in how much they value physical attractiveness in a mate at certain levels of relationship investment. Specifically, at the one-night stand and sexual relationship levels, the sexual differentiation effect nearly disappeared and both men and women valued high attractiveness for potential sexual partners.
Nowadays, there is less socio-economic pressure to engage in a long-term relationship / marriage. As a result, we are at liberty to "try before we buy". I suppose that many long-term relationships initially start out as low investment relationships in which physical attraction was the main selection criterion for both partners. In other words, the fact that we can end non-marital relationships without taking an economic hit, and that almost all unions start out as non-marital, could make our partner selection criteria more gender-equal.
Besides, the percentage of female academics as well as female job opportunities and income levels have greatly increased since Buss and Barnes conducted their research. Their assessment that "men tend to have greater access to monetary resources" is less true nowadays than it was back in the 1980s.
Still, 200,000 years of Homo sapiens evolution, and millions of years of hominin evolution prior to that, probably trump the socio-economic gender equality progress made in recent decades. Most men are still shallow enough to value looks more than anything else, and I suppose that many women are still subconsciously looking for providers. But I'm male, so I can only speak with relative certainty for my side in the battle of the sexes
(One thing I've noticed in myself is that mate selection criteria change with age. Attractiveness becomes less of a factor, while personality as well as shared views and interests gain importance. But for me, the most important criterion has always been bad taste or "who could probably want someone like me", so I'm not entirely sure that I can even speak for my own gender here
).what women and men SAY they prefer as opposed to who they actually marry is where we are looking at this differently. women earn less than men so looking at actual earnings information is not really a fair comparison.
however, there are a couple of items worthy of note. first of all, women are more educated than men today on average and they are marrying men of equal or lesser education at higher rates now. in fact, more women marry men with LESS education than MORE:
Quote:
In 1970, 28% of wives in this age range had husbands who were better educated than they were, outnumbering the 20% whose husbands had less education. By 2007, these patterns had reversed: 19% of wives had husbands with more education, versus 28% whose husbands had less education. In the remaining couples — about half in 1970 and 2007 — spouses have similar education levels.
also, men gain more economically than women do from marriage in the modern day as opposed to 40 years ago (the article explains why):
Quote:
From an economic perspective, these trends have contributed to a gender role reversal in the gains from marriage. In the past, when relatively few wives worked, marriage enhanced the economic status of women more than that of men. In recent decades, however, the economic gains associated with marriage have been greater for men than for women.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01/ ... -marriage/
one last point (which my Canadian government kept quiet) was that during the economic downturn Canada became the first nation to ever have more women employed outside the home than men. although this did not quite happen in other nations, the rate of female employment outside the home nearly matches men in every western/northern nation. so women aren't even staying at home to rely on men's wages anymore.
so according to these trend it would be men who are marrying for money and not women.
20 Jan 2012, 11:43 pm
