Q&A from “Men As Success Objects”, “Women As Sex Objects”
Wise Readers,
Are men—not just women—also seeking a walking wallet? Are they really that adamant about youth-seeking? What options might women have for maintaining Youth & Beauty once the youth part is gone? And does planning for a life alone mean that you’ll really be alone? Read on!
Cheers, Duana
Reader Comments from Men as Success Objects (5):
In my dating experience, which is sparse, I have found that men want the woman to be thin, beautiful and wealthy. They meet me, thin, beautiful, healthy, sexy, intelligent, joyous, talented and kind, but when it comes to my pocketbook, having been required to live at poverty level to qualify for my son’s extensive medical care and now that my son has passed, cleaning up the debt from expenses that ensued during his last couple of years, they head for the hills. All I can do is to say, “Oh, well,” and enjoy my own sweet company and that of my friends. I may someday be dating material when I have fuller pockets. I wonder if I will care any more by then.
February 3, 2010 | Karen
Karen, I am sorry for the pain you’ve experienced about your son and about your dating experience after he passed. You’ve made a sad but good point about the finances of dating. Because men have been selected for having resources, economics can play out as follows:
—Men with abundant resources usually trade them for a woman who is much younger, unless they themselves are already very young;
—And if you’re at mid-life, men with less-abundant resources sometimes try not to spend/commit them unless they feel like they are already in love with you.
This may mean that your best bet will be with men you meet in social groups such as volunteer organizations, church/synagogue, etc. A guy who gets to know The Real and Really Wonderful You without dating you first has a chance to fall in love…if he asks you out, he’s already decided you’re Important to him.
Men commit their money where they have already committed their hearts, a reality discovered in studies the world over…so, gaining the heart is the key to getting a mate who is more concerned with what he can give you, than in what you might cost him.
One of my friends refers to dating as a blood sport. If you find yourself nodding in agreement, that can signal that you’re pretty worn from the dating experience, and may get a lot from taking a break as you’re doing. I hope you emerge from it rested and raring to go.
February 3, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
Awesome Duana! Thank you so much for the great article.
February 3, 2010 | Barbara
I completely understand a woman’s desire for a potent provider and protector. While some may call that gold-digging, I say fair is fair. If the guys expect us girls to be young and hot, then we can expect them to be ambitious and rich. So there. At least the guys have some control over their end.
But in the final analysis, can’t we all just realize we NEED each other at a core level because we COMPLEMENT each other. You know, the ying/yang, alpha/omega whatever you want to call it thing. It works. And in my opinion, that’s where some of the die-hard feminists have gone awry when they say they don’t want/ don’t need a man. And then they become man-ish themselves, trying to do it all and be it all. Well, if we all behave like men, it throws the whole thing out of kilter.
What society needs, in my opinion, is for women to be women and men to be men. Sure, women can have careers and men can raise children and there can be a balance of the two, but at their core, the traditional roles do work. We need women AND we need men. As the article points out:
“Men aren’t just pleasant accessories to the core business of life, and never were.”
In other words, men are important. They have a job to do in this world. And if that means getting a shot in the arm of ambition (or losing the lady), then so be it. As for us girls, we have no choice but to get old. But we will try to keep ourselves up, and the *right* guy *will* recognize our many attributes (not just physical) when the right time comes along.
*End of soapbox”
February 4, 2010 | Joan
Barbara, most welcome—thanks for the kudos.
Hi, Joan, I think the next article will address some of the abundant frustrations we women feel at an aging process which is, if not inevitable, then better than the alternative ;). For now, let me agree that both sexes have always been important, and the post-60’s idea that men are superfluous has been contradicted by every study I’ve reviewed.
That said, what seems most vital from the standpoint of happiness and survival is not actually the gender or sex of the pair, but that there are Two. Humans who are committed to one another for life—regardless of their sex or sexual orientation—are on average a lot healthier, wealthier, and happier than people who are by themselves. Children similarly benefit from having two people who are together and committed to one another and to raising those kids—regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of those parents.
It appears that one main reason that Two Are Better Than One arises from a natural division of labor that couples work out, not to mention the companionship and emotional support they offer each other in the storms of life. In most couples—again, regardless of gender or orientation—one person takes on the primary breadwinner responsibilities, the other the primary homemaker responsibilities. In our culture, these roles are often shared, but rarely are they shared evenly. It is still the case among straight couples that the roles tend to shake out along semi-traditional lines. But whoever does whatever—as long as the jobs get done, and the hands get held, and the backs get patted, Life Feels Better.
Thanks for a thought-provoking contribution.
February 6, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
Reader Comments from Women as Sex Objects (7):
Hi, again…this is a great site and I learn so much from it.
So, I am a 54-year-old man who is single again, after 20 years of marriage and four fine sons. I don’t feel a real need to be married again, but I would gladly be partnered and exclusive. I’d like to add some observations to your list for women who are seeking a man …
#1 - absolutely on target. Having someone with whom I can converse naturally (because our interests, experiences, and educational backgrounds are aligned) is the best. Being able to nod and laugh, instead of shrugging and grimacing …
#2 - I’d offer “healthy, happy and active” as an alternative reading to “young and hot”. I definitely agree with the magic ratio. Curves are tough to resist! Shiny soft hair, cut stylishly, rocks. Anyone can benefit from a little “What Not to Wear” treatment, be it woman or man. A man can’t really **tell** how old you are … he can only hazard a guess from your skin, hair, shape and style. And, come to think of it, I would rather be with someone close to my age (so we have those shared experiences) rather than someone much older *or* younger than I am. I guess that last point will vary for different people.
#3 - familiar and friendly? Yep. It’s easy to fall for someone who thinks you are cool, too. People who are curious and interested in other people seem to have a built-in hotness.
#4 - Be the younger woman? Well, sure, I would not have disqualified a cool, smart 35 yr old … but my baby is 48+ and that seems just perfect. When I was first single, I was meeting and dating women 2 to 5 years *older* than me. Their ages were not the problem (I was very attracted to them), but problems cropped up with some of the other factors (matches in education, money, attitudes etc.).
#5 - Just don’t screen out people on the basis of our pedigrees, I guess. It goes back to wanting to be with someone who thinks I am great the way that I am. Don’t want to be “tested” or “sized up”, just want to enjoy shared time and space. And plenty of us guys are willing to make the effort for *you*, too.
Peace ;-) T
February 24, 2010 | Tom
Clever advice for people who want to fall in love again. Love is indeed sweeter the next time. Keep up the good loving here on your blog. By the way, it might interest you too to have your own free and easy to manage love and relationship forum. Good luck.
February 25, 2010 | Mitch
Dear Tom and Mitch, I don’t recognize your voices from earlier Q&A’s—Welcome, and thank you for your kind and thought-full responses. (Mitch, I’m interested in your idea regarding a relationship forum. Please write to me privately, if you don’t mind doing so, at Duana@LoveScienceMedia, and tell me more.) I hope you’ll contribute again soon.
Tom, thank you for your thorough and considered response. I find your #2 point to be particularly important and intriguing: “A man can’t really **tell** how old you are … he can only hazard a guess from your skin, hair, shape and style. And, come to think of it, I would rather be with someone close to my age (so we have those shared experiences) rather than someone much older *or* younger than I am.” There’s a lot in what you say, and I’d like to offer some more to go with it.
Women today do have an unprecedented opportunity to extend the appearance of youth and beauty. I don’t think many men would find Julia Roberts unappealing—even though she’s now passed an age that would have disqualified her as a female romantic lead only a generation ago. A man’s mating psychology is geared to note the *appearance* of youth and beauty, because in the ancient past from which that psychology descends, only the very young and healthy could have pulled it off. Now, we women have Options to emit those visual cues while being Of A Certain Age.
Unfortunately, though, the vast, vast majority of men do, really and truly, continue to express an outright preference for women who are chronologically younger than they are, and to at least attempt acting on that preference. This can be seen in numerous studies using various methods, including studies where men are asked to specify the age range they would most desire. Examine men’s filters on dating sites, and it’s apparent they’re not even looking at profiles of older (and, if the man is in his 40’s and 50’s, same-age) women the vast majority of the time. Analyses of personals ads the world over, and glimpses into arranged marriages, also show that as men get older, the age gap they prefer widens. And it does not widen in the direction of wanting an older woman.
Naturally, there are exceptions, such as your ownself. Science is fantastic at predicting what most of the people will do most of the time—but no method aside from my Magic 8 Ball shows what all of the people will do all of the time. Just as studies of smoking and cancer are valid even though some people use tobacco ‘til they’re 100 and die peacefully of old age, science continues to be accurate as a general predictor of What (insert the adjective) These Mortals Be. Which is why I Love Science ;).
And you’re absolutely correct that it would be to men’s (and women’s) long-term-relationship-happiness advantage if men preferred a partner their own age once they no longer needed or wanted to create new life, as you yourself have been open to doing. The data could not be clearer: The best path to Finding the right person is finding a Match in as many regards as we possibly can, and studies show that age-gaps greater than 9 years are a divorce risk. Sharing an age means sharing a generation, a set of experiences, perhaps a set of values—All Good for long-term happiness. But since our mating psychology comes from a time when life was brutish and short, our Genes aren’t quite as interested in our whole-life happiness as I would like them to be.
Finally, you’re right that “healthy and active” could be a better word choice than “hot” (although I won’t budge on “young”, lol). The word “hot” can be misconstrued as “tramp”—when what’s actually needed to attract a man long-term rather than for one night is allure that simultaneously communicates beauty and fidelity (anti-tramp).
And different men will find different women alluring, even though it’s clear that nearly every man (and woman) can and will agree on whether a particular individual is beautiful. For instance, lots of studies have had men and women rate photos of total strangers’ looks on a 1-10 scale, and the agreement is startling. But Beautiful In General is not the same thing as Beautiful To Me. Some men want the librarian-type; some the athlete; some the mysterious classic beauty. Whatever the specific type, though—men do want the curves and clear skin to go with it.
Some things just never go out of style.
Thanks again.
February 25, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
Hey, you called me a “scent-sitive guy” last time I was here … I laughed. ;-)
February 25, 2010 | Tom
Tom—from now on, if you sign off as “Scent-sational Tom”, I’ll know who you are!
February 26, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
To a fairly large extent, these tips all boil down to (as Jon Stewart puts it), “Be a bleeping person!” It’s all about being a decent human being, getting out there and connecting to other humans, not lying, putting your best foot forward when it comes to packaging yourself, and not pre-judging men by their pocketbooks and birthdates.
Since being a bleeping person and getting a life are totally beneficial whether you succeed at re-mating or not, it seems like this is a pretty good deal. Get involved in groups that attract men — so you get out and do interesting things, maybe try a new hobby — that’s good. Looking young and cute generally involves stuff like sunscreen (which prevents bad evil skin cancer), nutrition (scurvy is a big turn-off), and a reasonable amount of exercise.
Similarly, training yourself *not* to pre-judge men on their wealth or other spawning-related markers might just help you (and me) to choose companions based on things that truly matter. And putting yourself into the best packaging you can will positively affect many areas of your life. Trust me, as a person who works at home, I find that I am more productive and interested in life if I dress in a manner such that I could (at least theoretically) go outside and interact with humans than if I wear the old sweats with the ketchup stains.
And yet, sadly enough, it may well be that none of these tips will work for me in my possible future widowhood.
Being as I’ve always been attracted to the silver fox type, or perhaps more the “silverback” type — men at least 35 years old, and usually about 10 years my senior — I have my own little issue: I couldn’t really date guys I found attractive until my mid-20s (because 35 year olds who want to date teenagers are quite creepy). And the pool will be even smaller if/when I am a widow. The period of my life when I can realistically pick and chose started late and will end early. It’s good that I have Asperger’s and therefore enjoy having a lot of time to myself!
Oh, if only I could develop a taste for younger men and enough money to hire Debbie Reynold’s plastic surgeon by then! (Seriously, the woman is 78 and has a face tighter than a drum skin.)
I wonder if the fact that I am expecting to be alone for the last 20 or so years of my life will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. My planning — financial, social, and emotional — is based on the idea that the current spouse is the last spouse I’ll ever have.
This is all theoretical at the moment: Mocha’s Dad has quite a bit of mileage left on him (knock wood). But I think the question is still a valid one: does planning for a realistic likely need to go solo actually block that 5% chance of finding someone?
In other words, while acting like you are on the hunt seems likely to benefit you if you remain single, does assuming that you are likely to remain single throw a spanner in the works?
February 25, 2010 | Mocha’s Mom
Dear Mocha’s Mom, Thank you for the cogent explanations and question: “…does planning for a realistic likely need to go solo actually block that 5% chance of finding someone? “
On the one hand, married women spend about 8 years as widows at the end of their lives, on average— 2 years for the typical age gap, and 6 more years for the genetic and psychosocial advantages of being female. In your case, you and your husband have an age gap considerably greater than 2 years. Which means your 20-year widowhood guesstimate is probably accurate, and it would be foolhardy *not* to do the financial, social and emotional planning you’ve engaged in so assiduously. You’ve done the smart thing.
Whether that very planning will keep you alone is less clear. Attitudes do predict behaviors—meaning that if your attitude is that you will necessarily remain single, then you’re likely to behave in line with that belief. And remain single.
But abundant evidence shows that behaviors also predict and change our attitudes. To wit, most Americans didn’t believe seatbelt use was necessary or desirable…until *after* seatbelt laws were passed. Once they started wearing seatbelts in accordance with the law, their beliefs fell in line that seatbelt wearing is a Good & Moral Thing. Same with laws on desegregation and divorce. Once people were forced to desegregate in the South of the USA, most came to believe integration was desirable, and to be friendlier to members of other races. And as no-fault divorce laws spread across the United States, many more people came to see divorce as an acceptable and even a Moral thing (such as divorce for the sake of the kids).
So here’s my best guess: If, once you are single again, you begin to behave as if you want a man in your life, then your attitude will follow. Preparing now need not prevent an attitude shift later. Just Act As If, and your heart will follow. And then you, too, will be in the best position to beat the odds.
February 26, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2009, Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.. All rights reserved.
Share Article Print Article Permalink tagged Dating, Evolutionary Psychology, Male Female Differences
Reader Comments (10)
Fascinating! I'm loving the comments as much as the article, which was fab!
Basically, I think the 60 -70's "revolution" when women took on traditionally male careers did something to the mojo mix. Seems to me that both sexes --men AND women-- are acting like MEN.
Traditionally, men went for youth and beauty; women went for cash. Now we see "Cougar"women like Demi Moore going for male youth and beauty (Ashton Kutcher) and men insisting on cash. Anti-discrimination laws have made it possible for women to earn more than ever. One the one hand, that's good. But is it flipping the relationship scales out of whack?
Basically, I think everyone is out to make the best deal they can in the relationship game. Both sides are behaving like men in the dating game, and both sides want it ALL: looks, compatibilty, and cash.
@Duana. Exactly. I wasn't challenging gay relationships --I was challenging the feminist notion that men are dispensable -they aren't. In my opinion, some feminists are making a big mistake in thinking they can *do* it all and *be* it all, especially when children are involved.
As Gillian points out, some feminist women are acting like men in the dating/relationship game, and how well is that really working?
Ver-r-ry interesting. As you know, Duana, I have the best possible situation in my long-term marriage. Reading LS has provided some scientific *explanations* for our instant attraction and the health of our marriage. I am fascinated...eager to learn more. Of course, it takes Two to Tango successfully...but I have never even considered wanting or needing another man in my life. If smoking doesn't kill me first, I will most likely spend my last years a widow. Hubby has health issues (and is 3 1/2 yrs older than I). I know from my mother's experience how difficult it can be for One to handle alone all the business, errands, social niceties etc etc of a full, active life as a Couple. Yet, I have always figured I'd be *Just Fine* alone...the loneliness and emptiness of life without my beloved would be a tough hill to climb. But I am that dreaded *Only Child* and have always preferred Solitude. Our marriage has worked for me, because each of us has the opportunity for Solitude...even while sitting in the same room. It will be interesting to see how my life *plays out* in the next 10-15 years.
The joke, of course, is...why in the world would I want to marry again & have to once again arrange my life around another's? I'm ready to do What I Want to Do When I Want to Do It ;-) Just a little Female Humor thrown in.
Hi there, Gillian and Joan,
I've missed your voices the last week or so. Yes, sometimes it can seem that the sexes are role-switching as a matter of course, but that's mostly because we pay attention when behavior violates the norm. There have always been individuals who go against the prevalent inherited psychology--Queen Elizabeth and Joan of Arc, for instance. And they sometimes make history because they are not only great at what they do, but unusual for inhabiting the bodies in which they do it.
Which brings up a couple interesting points of evolutionary psychology (EP). EP describes and explains basic human nature--literally, what our nature is as human beings, and as distinct from and compared with other creatures' natures. It's assumed that human universals are a window into human nature. So, for instance, men's continuing worldwide preference for youth and beauty tells us a lot about what men faced as challenges in the ancient past, and may or may not still face today.
But universal does not mean that every individual shows the particular psychological adaptation that helped our ancestors' survival. It just means that most people in all known places/cultures exhibit this preference or behavior. So, divorce and infidelity are universals even though --thankfully-- not everyone goes through these events. But divorce and infidelity have solved problems of survival and reproduction for our ancestors, and so they are with us today.
So back to your points. For the most part, men and women everywhere, including the Western world, maintain stereotypical gender roles to a large degree, although not as large as when culture (in addition to inherited psychological preferences) mandated that we all had to fit in the particular cubby our biology suggested. The Demi Moores of this world remain highly atypical in a number of ways--not only is Ms. Moore much older than her sweetheart, but she is much more youthful in appearance than most of her age-mates, and she is much richer than just about any "normal" woman who would attempt having what she's got. She has, in effect, beaten the odds.
Yet the odds she's beaten would not even appeal to most women, at least when it comes to nabbing a younger guy. Women worldwide, even as they age, express a preference for older rather than younger men. For our maternal ancestors, older but not younger men tended to have the resources needed for our provision and protection. And my guess is that women prefer older men for another reason as well: They prefer us. No point wasting valuable, short reproductive time on a younger guy who might never notice, or who might notice only long enough to get us in a procreative bind.
And men still want youth and beauty much more than they expect, pursue or express a desire for ready money. The matching phenomenon shows that most of the time (and in all of the world), men and women tend to prefer a partner who is highly similar to themselves in almost every way. The major exception is this: When men can trade cash for youth, they do so (if they are poor, they "settle" for someone about as good-looking as they.). When women can trade great looks/youth for cash, or cows, or whatever "protection and provision" are in their culture, they do so (if they are plain/older, they "settle" for someone of about their already-existing economic status).
So we should then expect that older, wealthier men are going to make the following bargain whenever possible:
A. Get a woman their own age who won't "cost" them monetarily; or
B. Get a considerably younger, more beautiful partner who may have little monetarily.
Men tend to choose Option B. It's not so much that they're behaving as women, as it is that men trade resources for youth, and barring that, they will act to conserve their resources. I want to make it clear that I, having a female mating psychology, have an intense dislike of this on a personal level, and that as a scientist, I understand that What Is is not necessarily What Should Be. But this is the way It Is now.
These are our Genes talking here, of course, and they don't speak alone. Culture and Genes interact to constrain and change behavior. Still, though, no matter how you slice it, by and large, women aren't becoming men, and men aren't becoming women. Psychologically, men and women remain similar in most ways, and distinct in a few highly specialized aspects associated with the ancient struggles for survival and reproduction.
It took us literally millions of years to evolve our current psychology. And although we're changing all the time, as are all species, the psychology we now hold will take millenia to alter. For better or worse, our evolved brains and the behaviors that go along with them won't be undone as easily as that.
Cheers,
Duana
Hi, Carmen,
There are many women who *don't* want to marry again once widowed, and I would never push the idea of remarriage on someone who saw it more as a shackle than a goal, lol. You and your husband have a great love, and it's lasted all your adult lives. More power to you!
Duana, thank you for this thorough and thoroughly engaging response - I love it! I learn so much on your site. No wonder your students adore you :) You are helping alot of people understand alot of stuff!
I understand what you said, and I know it's the genes that are talking, but I am still wondering ....
What do the older men really get from the younger women, in terms of a net gain?
Compatability? Nope, different generations. Trophy wife does not like peanuckle.
Babies? Nope. Grandaddy's not interested in more kids.
Longterm relationship? Nope. Age differences > 9 years = divorce risk.
Resources? Nope, trophy wife is broke and doesn't care to work, thank you.
Sex? Yep, but you can't have sex all day, every day. At some point, you have to actually talk to each other.
So these wealthy older guys are willing to trade a ton of resources (the upcoming divorce will cost them dearly, even with a prenup) for a few years of incompatiable marriage with a young supermodel? I think that's STU-PID.
But I guess the genetic urges are overriding the cerebullum (or wherever the logic is kept :) ?
At its most superficial, A Helluva rush! Energy in its rawest form. The ego trip and the bragging rights in that he was able to bag such a chick. And lastly, fantasy sex. Its probably not even good sex, just a fantasy come true.
I turned on my testosterone laiden man side for these points.
One the sensitive side, energetic companionship, youthful reinvigoration and possibly the goal of shaping a young partner into the woman he desires with his wisdom, lol. I'm stirring the pot again.
Oops, forgot my opinionated viewpoint females(my best guess)
Woman side superficial gold diggin: security, fun, security, financial independence(sorta), security, lifestyle flexibility, security, prideful bragging(not verbal but by actions and projected image) and lastly security.
Sensitive side: Security, Love and did I say security. LOL. A golddigger can love her partner.
Gabriel, I'd say A+ on nailing the superficial side of women. Might I add: Power! Also known as: My Boyfriend can beat up your boyfriend. Or at least kick his butt in the stock market.
Outstanding points, Gillian and Gabriel. Because our inherited mating desires arise from the Pleistocene, they're not necessarily designed for our optimal happiness and well-being today.
And because evolutionary psychology operates at a level *below* conscious awareness, we want what we want, and seldom do we ask Why or Whether It Still Makes Sense For Us. Examples:
--Men who continue to demand youth and beauty even when it no longer serves them (in all the ways you pointed out, Gillian);
--Women who continue to demand resources even when they themselves are already rich, already have all the kids they want, have raised their offspring to maturity, and/or have zero problems with meeting their own survival needs--as research around the world has demonstrated;
--Men who never feel that they have enough status, resources, etc, and women who never feel they've got enough youth and beauty--even when the men and women in question have married well and are happy in their relationships.
And Gabriel, you're spot-on and hilarious in your assessment of what women and men get out of seemingly irrational choices to youth-worship/gold-dig. I would add this example to show just how important status is to men--keeping in mind that the way a man's mate looks, aka "arm candy", is a huge part of his status with other men and within himself:
To wit, years ago, I had a student who was blind. He was in his 50's, handsome, charming, intelligent. We used to converse a bit after class. He volunteered with an organization for the blind, and I wondered aloud: Do blind men, even men who have been blind all their lives, continue to demand youth and beauty when choosing a partner? If evolutionary psych is right, they "should"--because of the high status a young, beautiful partner confers, and because their Genes get access to a fertile mate that way. If EP is wrong, then blind men ought not care one whit what their partner looks like.
But they do. Oh, yes, they do. David Buss cites similar anecdotes about a blind man who introduced his girlfriend to everyone they met as a supermodel. When eventually told by some honest (if not terribly compassionate) soul that the girlfriend was in fact very plain, the blind man dumped her and found another woman who rated as great-looking among sighted men.
I wish our inherited psychology had an "off" switch--one we could push whenever it no longer made any sense for us to pursue it. But it doesn't. The best we can do, I think, is to become aware of what our knee-jerk Genes are trying to get us to do--and then to stubbornly refuse to listen when it makes sense for us to tune them out.
Sometimes, this can be done admirably--as with the many women I know who have found love after mid-life by ignoring the Voices clamoring for wealth and status in a partner. The older woman psychologist wed to the same-age truck-driver? They're happy!
Other times, the "off" switch just can't be found even when we would prefer it. A man who smells bad due to a too-similar MHC gene complex is just a man who smells bad. Nothing to be done about it--someone else will think he smells fab. It's not something I think we can logic our way out of, or into.
Thanks again for your comments and enthusiastic, thoughtful support of what we're doing here at Love Science.
Cheers,
Duana