More And More Men Are Settling For Ms. Good Enough

Evan Marc Katz

This week, my friend Arielle Ford, author of The Soulmate Secret, sent me a link to a Daily Beast article. The author of the article interviewed anthropologist Helen Fisher, PhD, of Rutgers. (Fisher has written five books and conducted extensive research on the evolution and future of human sex, love, marriage, gender differences in the brain and how your personality type shapes who you are and who you love. Her latest is Why Him? Why Her?: How to Find and Keep Lasting Love.) Fisher’s latest study is of singles in America.

Fisher explains it this way. “We have a stereotype in this culture that it’s men who are the ones who don’t want to commit, who don’t want to settle down, who are the scarce resources. But in fact, it’s the opposite.”

There’s an old adage: a woman who can’t find a man is a spinster; a man who doesn’t want a wife is the envy of all his friends. Fisher says “We have a stereotype in this culture that it’s men who are the ones who don’t want to commit, who don’t want to settle down, who are the scarce resources. But in fact, it’s the opposite.”

There’s an old adage: a woman who can’t find a man is a spinster; a man who doesn’t want a wife is the envy of all his friends.

Rather than living up to the stereotype of commitment-phobic bachelors, modern men reported that they fell in love just as often as women, and were just as likely to believe that marriage is “forever.”

The study found that 31 percent of adult men said they’d commit to a person they were not in love with –- as long as as she had all the other attributes they were looking for in a mate —- and 21 percent said they’d commit under those same circumstances to somebody they weren’t sexually attracted to. The equivalent numbers for women were far lower.

“There’s this transformation going on,” says Tom Matlack, co-founder of The Good Men Project, which aims to discuss and debunk modern male stereotypes. “It’s kind of like feminism on its head: for years, women were trying to earn the right to get out of the house, and here are all these men dying to get back into [it].”

Said one study participant, “We all marry our second or third or fourth best choice. It’s just life.”

This article echoes Lori Gottlieb’s Atlantic article-turned-bestseller, Marry Him! The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. In it, Gottlieb counseled women to forget the search for a mythical soulmate and nab a good man who wants to be a husband and father (lest they end up, like Gottlieb herself, alone and regretful at 40).

Read the article here. As always, I’d like you know what you think.

Print Friendly

Related Posts:

1. Don’t Judge a Book By Its Cover – In Defense of “Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough” by Lori Gottlieb
2. Why (Some) Women Might Consider Settling
3. Why Are Only-Child Women (And Men) So Self-Centered?
4. Am I Settling If My Soulmate And I Don’t Believe In Marriage?
5. Should I Risk Getting Hurt, Or Settling And Being Unhappy?

Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared.

88 Comments »Filed Under Chemistry, Dating, Marriage, Understanding Men

88 Responses to “More And More Men Are Settling For Ms. Good Enough”

1. sthrnphoenix 1

   I’m not terribly surprised.  Men aren’t really any less likely to want a loving, fulfilling relationship than women.  Perhaps they are just a bit more reasonable and willing to compromise because they also bear most of the burden of rejection.  There are, of course, those men that refuse to settle for anything less than June Cleaver in a Playboy bunny’s body, but I don’t think your average man is quite that blind.  However, I do think that because of greater freedom and less actually “need” to have a husband than generations past has made women pickier.  Picky isn’t even bad, as long as you’re being picky about the right things.  No alcoholic, drug-addicted, mean-tempered people?  Check.  But 6′ 2″, $100,000/yr, and emotionally available too?  Perhaps that’s just a tad unrealistic.  The only problem I have is that relaxing the criteria for tall, well paid, muscular, blonde, etc. is lumped in with excluding the mean alcoholics and drug addicts when the word “settle” comes up.  Why in the world would you lump that stuff together?
    
   Still, I was concerned about one of those statistics, and that was the 21% who would commit to a woman they are not sexually attracted to.  It could be because I’m not a guy, but the idea of having sex with someone I don’t find sexually attractive is pretty horrible to me.  Mostly because, if I don’t find him sexually attractive, I’m not going to enjoy having sex with him.  Doesn’t it work the same for men?  If so, this just seems like they are setting themselves up for failure, either with affairs later or sexual frustration for one or both partners.  That really disturbs me.  Any thoughts on that, Evan?
    

2. Androgynous 2

   Sorry, but I don’t believe any of this has to do with gender differences or gender issues. Men and women, who have a lot going for them in terms of looks, money, career, intellect etc do NOT settle because they don’t need to. The “settling” is almost always done by those who are lacking in these areas. The difference here is that women tend to expect more from marriage and would rather be alone than in a less than satisfactory union. Their ability to make friends and their emotional resilience ensure they are never lonely. The other point is that women with lower “market value” have gotten used to being alone, not having been asked out on dates or having been dropped for someone “better”. Men on the other hand, get the message a bit later. They initially refuse to believe (because their egos won’t let them) they have low market value as partners, and keep trying and trying and finally they realise they are not going to get what they want or think they deserve.

3. Shaswata P 3

   Pleasure is nothing positve in any intrinsic way….examine pleasant sensations and realize that objectively it doesnot bring any innate benefit…when men relaize this they will also not feel any need to chase after women …

   Men will then settle for No Miss and not just Ms. Good Enough…Hope this helps everybody Thank you 

4. DinaStrange 4

   Sometimes i think that being single is not such a bad idea after all.

5. Androgynous 5

   Yes, sthrnphoenix, this is what I didn’t get from the study too – that men will settle for women they weren’t sexually attracted to ?!? Makes me think this study is flawed. Then again, maybe it is just in the wording. I think it is more likely that men and women settle for partners they find attractive enough to have sex with. There is absolutely no way any man or woman will have a partner they did not find attractive. For a man, sex becomes  impossible because there needs to be a physical reaction for that to happen. For women, sex is possible only in a technical sense. She will be loathing every minute of it and unless there is utterly no way out for her, she will be gone.

6. Patricia 6

   My opinion is that this article is scary! I’m in my 20′s and I don’t really like to think that I will marry someone who thinks I’m his second best thing… Perhaps it’s because I grew up watching the Disney fairy-tales where love is instantaneous and forever. It’s hard for me think that I will be someone who doesn’t really feel anything for me, doesn’t think of me when I’m not around, doesn’t miss me, doesn’t dream about me… And that’s why maybe I won’t get married and neither will most of the females my generation! Since we don’t need men financially, we want to be with someone because of the true love that exists, so we refuse to ”settle”. We heard that men settle, it’s not surprising for us to know they marry their 2nd or 3rd choice, but nobody wants that! No girl is taught to be realistic when it comes to love and when they see men drooling over stupid supermodels like they are goddesses but being with us just because it’s life it’s enfuriating! Oh, if only men weren’t so shallow and average-looking girls actually had a chance…

7. Desdenova 7

   Average look girls probably have a much better chance than average looking males.  When a woman initiates contact on an online-dating site, they are 5-6 more times likely to get a positive response and eventual date than if a man does.
   I don’t know how much truth there is to the adage of men dreaming of many women and women dreaming of one man, but I think the opportunities for single women are significantly greater than single men. Women can afford to be picky.  And make jokes about men gawking at supermodels…
    

8. Raiden 8

   @Patricia #6
    
   The problem with average men and women is this: to the average man, the average woman looks great.  To the average woman, the average man looks like crap.
   Truth is, in dating, average women still can come out on top by being pleasant and kind-hearted.  The average man, on the other hand, pretty much has to move Heaven and Earth to get a woman’s attention.  Even after that, he has to bring his A game because it’s one thing to get your foot in the door, but something totally different to stay in the door.
   Not being one of the “alphas” myself, I’ve had to develop such things as wit, humor, and charm, since I never had the luxury of female attention.  This isn’t me being negative, but just merely reflecting what I’ve seen over the years.
   It’s pretty much given that if you’re lacking in one arena, you bolster up the others.  (i.e.  if you’re an average looking guy, then you have to boost wit, charm, humor, and kindness through the roof)

9. JoC 9

   I’m a hopeless romantic and huge believer in manifesting the life you think you are going to have. So, I would firstly say, if people have the attitude that they will never meet their perfect partner and their time is running out, of course they are going to ‘panic marry’. But I think it is such a shame, because I do really think everyone is capable of great happiness with someone and when you marry someone who you don’t truly feel that 100% for, you are not only preventing yourself from meeting your Mr/Mrs Right, you are also stopping your partner from meeting theirs. I have felt so much heartache seeing people marry someone because they have just ‘given up on the seach for love’. It’s not good for either party to be together because they are ‘good enough’. I really hope more people learn to believe they can have true happiness, because I genuinely believe you can. I shall marry someone who I love 100%. After all, the saying goes, ‘What you believe you achieve!’

10. Androgynous 10

    Raiden, I’m not sure what you are talking about. I mean that part of average women still coming out on top. I was and still am Ms Average and has ALWAYS been left on the shelf. The only men who ever showed interest in me were invariably drunk, old (as in over 60) or had some physical deficit or another (very very bad acne, very bad teeth etc). The fat ones didn’t even bother since it would have taken too much energy and their testosterone didn’t really work either, with all that estrogen receptive fat. Being bereft of choice, I normally gave these blokes a chance to impress me with their personality, despite the handicap. I can truly say that my average looks far surpassed the way below average looks of these men.
    I think it is a truism that men always aim higher than what they think they can get, with the expectation that they just might score that big one occasionally, or even less than occasionally. Just one big score might be enough for their egos. I think men refuse to accept that they just might be below par in the mating stakes. Their egos won’t let them. So they keep trying and trying and trying until finally it dawns on them, perhaps when they are too old and tired to try any more, that they are never going to get what they want, or think they deserve.

11. Raiden 11

    @Androgynous #10
    What I mean is that, from my experience and observations, an average woman with a nice personality that gives a guy no grief can net more mates on average as opposed to the average man with excellent qualities.
    As far as most men shooting for higher than they think they can get, I can’t speak for all men, but a lot of guys, as denoted from the study, know when to leave well enough alone.  A lot of guys may want to go for the Heidi Klums and Kim Kardashians, but they know they have a better chance of being struck by lightning than to land any of the above types of women.  In short, they go with the best option of woman that they can build a sensible life with.
     

12. Jane 12

    i am the voice of the woman who did marry the nice guy that everyone (family and friends) thought was so great. He was great, but for someone else. Everyone kept saying to me “marry him, marry him” and eventually I did. It was a disaster through and through, ending in divorce after 17 years of trying to make it work. My perspective? Hold out for love. I don’t mean the infatuated, intense chemistry type thing, but I do believe passion is something different. If you’re going to live with someone and have a family with them, passion will help you get through anything and make your life together much richer. Marrying your 2nd, 3rd or 4th option is an insult to the other person. They deserve better and so do you.

13. Tami 13

    I’m not  so sure I agree with this study, I mean it’s just an average no pun intended lol! I think women tend to be a bit more shallow than men ( I am a woman) I say men not boys after a guy ( a lot of them not all ) turns I’d say 28 or so he starts appreciating different things about women . I think too when a man looks at what i call avg girl he may see a beautiful woman but when we look we analyze everythin about her and say she is just average women are more detailed oriented men see ugly, pretty , or hot lols

14. DinaStrange 14

    I am so confused by the comments. First of all, isn’t beauty in the eyes of the beholder, so what is average for some, good looking for others. In my opinion, we need to be looking for compatibility in core values (first), then physical compatibility and so on. Physical appearance fades, what’s underneath stays.

15. Carrie 15

    I think the word “settle” has a negative connotation but what I am hearing is to figure out what qualities are most important to me and let the others slide.  The overall “score” may be a 7 but I have someone with the critical qualities.  For example, I am most attracted to engineers – I find them smart, pragmatic, and reassuring.  Other women are going to see BORING.  I’m sure the men who are “keen” on me have had to make their own “compromises.”  That is fine as long as we both get what is most important.

16. Pineapple 16

    I think one difference is perception of “settling.” I don’t put people on numerical charts, but did so here to make this easier to explain.   This is something I’ve seen from life through the years:

    A guy who is a “5″ is certain he deserves an “8″ … because “he’s not so superficial and can date regular girls.”  When he strikes out with 8′s and 7′s long enough, he “settles” for 6′s.  She may still have more going for him than he does, but he “settled” by not getting the women he wanted most.   As Raiden said: ” lot of guys may want to go for the Heidi Klums and Kim Kardashians, but they know they have a better chance of being struck by lightning than to land any of the above types of women. “  So, instead, they go for the second best looking women in the room, instead of the first.  And call it “settling.”

17. Tontae 17

    This one is tricky, Evan. Too many unmeasurable variables. I am an average, modest person inside (always have been) who once upon a time had above average looks outside. (now I am 50, I still look pretty good but I am realistic about my aging)

    10 years ago I was with an average guy who deemed me “out of his league” but instead of appreciating my wonderful, intangible qualities all he focussed on was my looks; and since I never would treat him badly (I would never treat anyone badly) he started to treat ME badly.

    I went on to experience some inexplicable behaviour from him – I think that he (men?) equate kindness and niceness with low self esteem, and he began to push buttons trying to elicit some kind of diva behaviour from me – maybe to justify his own low self esteem and deal with the fact that he always felt not good enough to be with me. It’s as though he would be pushing me away, expecting me to justify why I would chose to be with him, well, it worked – it became unbearable and I finally left…

    I have always looked for the good, decent man with quality character – height and looks, hair, occupation, etc. have never been factors for me, (although being grossly overweight and some unhealthy lifestyle choices are my dealbreakers)

    But for some reason, being open, approachable and warmly welcoming has had the opposite effect – it’s as though if a woman is not mysterious and hard to get she is not worth the effort. Do men think that a woman is settling if she is agreeable and easy to be with???
    Guys? What do you think?

18. Desdenova 18

    @ Androgynous #10
     
    I don’t know if you can appreciate the irony of what you wrote…
     

19. nathan 19

    There has to be something between the kind of settling that seems to be described here and the fairy tale stories that get so many of us in trouble. Marrying someone because basically they are “nice” and are willing to start a family seems pretty depressing if you ask me.
     
    I’m not convinced that the 31% of men claiming they’d commit to someone they aren’t in love with are telling the truth either. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that I’m not at all convinced that the men interviewed in the study had similar views of what “in love” means. Some might have rejected the notion believing it meant the kind of passion people tend to feel in the early stages of a relationship, something that doesn’t last in the long term. 
     
    But I do agree that there are many men out there who want to commit. That part of the research is accurate.
     

20. hespeler 20

    Tontae #17,
    This is a tough one.  While I want to say it shouldn’t matter, I just think it’s human nature for both men and women to become more intrigued by someone perceived as harder to obtain.
    I know that I’ve done better, that is, have had woman more attracted to me when my attention was divided.  Conversely, when I’ve acted even a bit more than casually interested, I have never got the girl.
    Once in a relationship, this should all go out the window as I think you are both equals at that point.
     

21. Ruby 21

    Seems like there are some odd inconsistencies in the study: That men are more visual and more likely to fall in love at first sight doesn’t jibe with 31% of men saying they are willing to marry someone they don’t love or 21% of men being willing to marry someone they are not attracted to. I think men do have biological clocks also, so maybe that explains the willingness of some men to compromise on physical attraction and love in order to have a family. Also, according to the study, poorer men fare the worst, since they have fewer resources to contribute.

    The study also found that, the older one is, the pickier: “People over 60 are pickier than any other age group when choosing a mate—insisting on both sexual attraction and love.” Once that clock stops ticking, again, people become pickier, even if they are considered less marketable, and have less time. 

22. Katherine Wakefield 22

    My ex boyfriend was a great man.  But not for me.  I tried to make it work and everyone said i was lucky to have such a kind man.  No matter what i tried it didnt work for me.  I figured if i had to try that hard to make it work, i was definitely with the wrong man for me.  Im not waiting for the fairytale romance, but settling isnt an option for me.

23. Still-Looking 23

    I have no problem with the assertion that some men will marry a woman they are not in love with or not sexually attracted to.  Just like some women, some men will marry for practical reasons — money, social status, a mother for their children, family pressure, corporate pressure, a fear of growing old alone, etc.
     
    I would venture a guess that one’s willingness to compromise on certain issues/traits changes as one ages.   On one hand, we learn what is truly important, on the other hand, the desire/motivation to commit lessens (for some of us) as we get older and we realize how content we are living the single life.

24. Androgynous 24

    Desdenova, I disagree about irony in my comments. I have never hankered or gone after men “out of my league” in looks and otherwise. I have always given men a chance, and not ruled out any relationship with them based on their looks or any outward sign of desirability. However, I have turned down men who are obviously just looking for physical contact and nothing else. I do find it cheeky that men with little going for them would try it on with average women like me – not for meaningful relationships in which they could offer qualities apart from their looks, but for sex alone in which the physical side counts for more than anything else.
    My observations about men shooting above their weight is corroborated by many others. Pineapple is right. A man ranked 4 in desirability thinks he is settling when he gets a 7 instead of a 9. A woman ranked 6 thinks she is settling when she gets a 3 instead of a 6 like her.

25. SugarBB 25

    @ Tontae 17: I have had this very same experience over and over. I am from the south and am living in New England. It was such a culture shock living up here and I noticed after 4 or 5 relationships that went exactly as you described, that it was a pattern.

    I have met the most wonderful, handsome, loving, honest, faithful, supportive, sharing, sexy, communicative boyfriend in the whole wide world (finally) and we love each other dearly. His family adores me, my family adores him, it’s all mutual, and we are a perfect fit. Ahhh. Thought it would never happen until I moved back down south again. Surprise. It did happen.

    If your inner truth is that the perfect love is waiting and you know exactly what it is and what it feels like but you just haven’t found it yet, you feel like I felt. I kept at it and found my perfect mate for life.

26. Helen 26

    This is what Lori Gottlieb had to say about men and settling in her original Atlantic article: “Settling is mostly a women’s game. Men settle far less often and, when they do, they don’t seem the least bit bothered by the fact that they’re settling.” Fisher’s study seems to agree with the latter part of Gottlieb’s statement, anyway – settling doesn’t faze men.

    But I have to wonder about the first part of Gottlieb’s quote: “Men settle far less often.” Statistically, it can’t be the case that men settle far less, unless she believes that women as a whole are so superior to men that very few men ”settle” by her standards.

    Also, I think it’s interesting that so many commenters here have zeroed in on appearance as the means by which men “settle.” In fact, the Fisher study defined settling as marrying someone with whom they’re not in love or for whom they don’t feel sexual attraction.  Her study indicated that men are far more likely to be fine with this than women.

27. Andrew 27

    Men are the gatekeepers to commitment.
     

28. sarahrahrah! 28

    EMK, you catch my attention when you start quoting Helen Fisher!  Her claims are backed by biological research and she almost always has new insight to share. I was surprised by her revelation that men are more ready to settle.
    Compared to the other readers, I’m less insulted by the realistic statements by settling men.  While I wouldn’t get “You’re My Favorite 4th!” inscribed on my wedding cake, I’m experienced enough to know that we are all capable of loving more than one person.  Indeed, I can also recognize that some of those that I’ve loved the most (my 1st and 2nd) were not capable of loving me back in a healthy, long-term way.  An intelligent person can and will realize that that sort of “ideal” really isn’t ideal and she will “settle” for that guy who maybe isn’t quite as thrilling (but not boring), but will be a better partner.
    I now realize that this is my primary draw in the mating world: that I’m a “nice person”, with a pleasant face and am easy to get along with.   Instead of feeling insulted when guys aren’t tripping over themselves to be with me, I’ve learned to accept that it takes a while for a man to get to know me and appreciate what I bring to a relationship.  If and when we fall in love, I’ll not feel bad about the fact that he loves and treasures me more because I listen to him and give great hugs than because I have shiny blond hair and long, skinny legs. 

29. Tina 29

    That’s why there is 50% divorce rate.

30. Anonymous 30

    Great advice, but nowadays a lot of writing focusses on convincing fussy, entitled women to give a guy a break.

    What do you say to a woman who is trying her best, but can’t even get a second date, because men don’t find her attractive enough. 

31. Saint Stephen 31

    On a scale of 1-10, I believe most men won’t know where they fit in on the attractive scale (except for the 9 and 10s).
    Men don’t place real stock on their looks. So a man whom a lady thinks is a 5 will probably be a 7 if he spends much time as women do, grooming he’s looks and fashion sense.
    In real life I don’t really see men who are 7 dating 9 and 10s – unless he’s an artist or maybe financially successful.

    A lot of men don’t need to be sexually attracted to a woman in other to have sex with her. hence a guy who’s a 9 in looks may wind up having sex with a lady who’s a 7, and that makes the lady naturally presume she’s also a 9.  Thus this creates a lot of confusion. 
    Whenever a man who’s a 7 in the looks department chases after a woman who seems to be his fellow 7 and becomes unsuccessful, he automatically assumes that he’s a 6 and immediately starts going after the 6s and when he eventually finds one – he’s happily contented without any feeling of settling. But a 7 woman who thinks she’s 8 and consequentially is unable to attract an 8 man will likely hold out for him or settle and becomes unhappy.  

32. Zaq 32

    @Androgynous

    You are being ironic. Raiden is correct when he states that women see average men as less than average. We have studies that prove it.

    If you are an average looking female, you are far more likely to be a 4 than a 7. You don’t seem to think that women less than a 5 exist. Nearly half of all women are you know.

    The big question that comes out of this, and which never gets aired on this blog is what do people who are a 4 do. Should they settle for someone who they are not attracted to.
     

33. Michelle 33

    #29, agreed and why the other 50% aren’t necessarily happy marriages, they just endure.  Or why so many men are in marriages where there is no or very, very little sex or affection (I thought that was detrimental to men and their emotional and physical wellbeing?)

    What I found about men is that when they are ready, they are ready.  Typically it’s one of the first women that comes along…if she is attractive enough and would be a good mother (assuming this is what he’s looking for), then he’ll move forward.   I do believe men are more likely to give up one or the other to get what they want–for example, if they have had off the charts sex in the past with someone, they are willing to not require that in their permanent partner.

    In my mind, all three legs of the stool must be there for a successful, long term relationship–physical/sexual attraction (doesn’t have to be off the charts sex, but he must be strongly motivated to want to have sex with her from the beginning), friendship ability and commitment ability (similar beliefs and values).  If one of those is missing or weak, over the long haul, that puts the relationship in jeopardy.

34. Karl R 34

    Helen said: (#26)
    “Statistically, it can’t be the case that men settle far less, unless she believes that women as a whole are so superior to men that very few men ”settle” by her standards.”

    If Lori Gottlieb was the ultimate arbitrator of whether I (or any other person) settled, then you would be correct.

    Howver, she does not decide whether I settled. I decide whether I settled.

    If I’m marrying someone who is 16 years older than me, less intelligent than me and less physically fit, am I settling? I would say that I’m marrying a woman who is cute, bright, funny, thoughtful, who shares my disinterest in having kids and who loves and accepts me exactly as I am. I’m getting everything I need, and a lot of extras too.

    Or to put it more broadly, if I originally set my goal at something that I’m capable of achieving, I don’t have to settle. If I originally set an unattainable goal, then I settling or failing become my only options.

35. hespeler 35

    38 year old man here who married the girl he wanted and subsequently got divorced.  There was great chemistry in the beginning and the sex eventually suffered towards the end (for a variety of reasons).  Prior to my marriage I had relationships with girls that I did not have a heavy attraction to.  Therfore, I have nver really had the the type of passionate sex I have been looking for, at least not for a sustainable amount of time. 

    I am considering making the most adult decision of my life and pursuing a relationship with someone that may not be what really turns me on but that I still find attractive enough.

    Going from a divorce to serial dating will tell you a lot about yourself if you have the courage to be introspective enough.  Or you can choose to keep scrolling through match.com for years in the hope that you just haven’t found the one yet.  There’s nothing wrong with that, everybody has freewill.

    I am trying very hard to think of myself as objectively as possible.  While I have a lot going for me, i.e., great career, I look 7 or 8 years younger than I am, very physically fit/athletic, height (which everyone seems to think of as important).  I also try and see what I don’t have, i.e., a full head of hair, can’t grow a masculine beard or goatee, among other things. 

    I’m constantly told I’m handsome which I agree with but I’m trying to admit that I am probably not a 9 or 10.  I have gone out on tons of dates; 4 or 5 have been with 9′s and 10′s.  Not one of them has given me a second date.  All the girls I have dated that I have considered a 6 or 7 have wanted to keep seeing me which I guess puts me at a 6 or 7 too.  Attractive enough to maybe get a date with a 9 or 10 but maybe not attractive enough to keep seeing a 9 or 10.  It’s harsh and maybe not reality because there may just be a 9 or 10 out there that is way into me but in the cut-throat business of serial dating where decisions are made in a split second, it’s a slim chance that I will find that “match.”

    Yes I guess I’m thinking of settling.  But is it “settling” or is is “realizing”?  Realizing where you stand and what type of people you can consistently attract.  It takes a lot of maturity to be that honest with yourself.

36. Ellen 36

    I’m with Jane #12- settling seldom works. She made it work for 17 years, I made it work for 25!!! (I kinda settled for a man I thought I loved so as to have children- but it took me years to figure out ’cause I did it subconsciously I think).

    I remember years ago talking to a shrink about it- we had a good enough marriage I guess though he could never validate me, feed me emotionally much, though I certainly fed him!. I remember her saying “Ellen, some day those chickens will come home to roost”. Well, she was right. At about year 23 I had an affair as I was hungry for connection, romance again. My bad, but that’s what “settling” made me do in the end.

    And my divorce cost me probably at least $40K, my adult children had somewhat of a hard time with it, I broke up a family, so, yeah, settling, can be bad for all concerned.

    Many times your karma is such that you aren’t going to get married til your middle age anyway. Check out Carol Allen and soulmatestars.com. Vedic astrology. I’ve ordered her Saturn report (for me. When my “lucky” times will be this life based on my chart) and two “right man reports”. Both were on target as all get out. There just is a lot of truth in it (how your specific moon subsign reveals how you love, the emotional you for one thing).

37. K 37

    Question from someone who isn’t married.  I see people on here talking about their failed marriage after 17-25 years.  Unless those were miserable years, wouldn’t 25 years with someone be considered a fairly successful marriage?  Does it have to be forever and good that whole time to be considered successful?  A lot of people I know now are splitting up after 5-7 years and I can see how that feels like a failure.  Anyhow I know nothing about marriage, but all the comments made me curious. 

38. Ruby 38

    I’m sure this has been discussed here before, but isn’t there a difference between settling and compromising? Don’t we make trade-offs all the time in life? We take the job that pays less because we love the work, or buy the smaller house because the neighborhood is great. We end up with the person who isn’t gorgeous because they’re so good to us and we get along so well. Or they are good-looking and kind, but don’t have the high-powered career, money, or ambition we thought we needed our partner to have.

    To me, settling is accepting a bad relationship or poor treatment, it’s not realizing that very few people get absolutely everything they’ve ever wanted, simply because no one out there is perfect.

39. Christie Hartman 39

    I’m not terribly surprised by most of this research. The idea that men are these commitmentphobes who have a hard time falling in love is hooey. Other research has shown that men fall in love just as quickly as women do, if not quicker, and that they take breakups really hard. In my work, I’ve seen how hard divorce is on men and how long it can take them to recover. Most men marry with the intention of staying married, and take it hard when things don’t work out.
     
    The word “settling” makes me nervous. Like Ruby (38) said, settling should be more about accepting a bad relationship or poor treatment rather than deciding to stop trying to obtain a fantasy. What we seek when dating often differs from what we seek in marriage. Many people, especially those who’ve been around the block, know that you don’t marry someone because he/she is hot, great in bed, tall, or high income… you marry someone because they have traits that work for long-term commitment and family – responsible, wants kids, gets along well with you. Men know this too. I agree with Hespeler (35) – “settling” can just be “realizing” the truth about what we can attract, and what matters most – i.e. letting go of fantasy.
     

40. Ruby 40

    hespeler #35

    It sounds as if you are defining a person’s value by their looks and their career. But there are other qualities that can make a more physically average person seem more attractive, like intelligence, a great sense of humor, or how well they treat you. Exactly what I’m referring to when I talk about trade-offs.

41. Katarina Phang 41

    Let’s face it people will date within their own league eventually.  You will attract equally attractive people so there is always a match for you if you seek mutual attraction (and you want people who find you attractive anyway, not the one who thinks you’re not all that).

    I won’t bother with overly good looking guys unless they come to me first.  At any rate, there is plenty of fish in the pond for everyone with the right attitude.  It’s not about being choosy or denying your need for chemistry.  Just put yourself out there, be a magnet and be fun and sooner or later the right match will find you.  

42. Zaq 42

    @Katarina

    But that’s the point. Unattractive people DO NOT find other unattractive people attractive. It may be true that “you are what you attract”, but many do not desire the ones they attract. It takes two to have mutual attraction, and that rarely happens.
     

43. Nicole 43

    @Zaq, we don’t all find the same things attractive.  And plenty of people that I think are pretty unattractive have partners who clearly adore them, or are never without a mate when they are in the dating pool.  It is patently untrue that unattractive people all hold out for the unobtainable. It’s about as true as the statement that we all find the same people equally attractive.  All of these things are influenced by where we are from and who we are, and people kind of overlook that too.  So you might see someone that you think is too unattractive to ever pay attention to but that person probably will find love.

    At the end of the day, many people who make their livings with their faces and bodies don’t have the kind of long-term, enduring love that many Average Joes find.

    I think it’s ridiculous how many people act as though regular people never get married and find true love.  Online dating might make some people take a shot with the prom queen, but it doesn’t change what has always happened in real life, which is that regular people of all ages, shapes, sizes, races, and income levels find true and lasting love.

    Online dating does mean that people get the illusion of choice and some think that the filters mean that you can conjure up the perfect man or woman, but not everyone is that silly or shallow, in addition to the fact that we simply do not all have the same tastes.  

    People here get all worked up by the term settling but I see it as letting go of the extreme requirements and nice to haves, and really focusing on the things that will make you want to spend your life with someone.  It also means that your ideal match may not come in the wrapper that you were expecting.  I know a lot of people who found true love when they let go of certain requirements, but they certainly did not marry losers that no one else wanted.  It was just opening themselves up to people who they might have overlooked before.  
     

44. Katarina Phang 44

    I don’t know what you’re talking about, Zaq.  I see average or below average people pair and marry all the time.  It’s not about looks.  Unless you are extremely ugly, which is a rarity, everyone has his/her own match.

45. Zaq 45

    Excellent sentiment girls, but studies show that beauty is NOT in the sight of the beholder, it is pretty objective really.
    Ugly people think other ugly people are, well ugly.

    I know two individuals that married each other because they felt no one else would marry them. I suppose you call that a match Katarina ?
    Anyway their marriage didn’t last.

    Women are far pickier than men. Most women on this blog would not even consider a guy who only makes the average wage – and that’s half the male population right there, before even considering looks.

46. Raiden 46

    Big difference between settling and compromising. Settling is admitting defeat and taking whatever comes your way. Settling is what I would’ve done had I stayed with my ex-gf. I desire a family and she could’ve given me that, but I would’ve been miserable. It’s not worth being with someone who crticizes every aspect of your life from the way live down to the way you worship. It’s not worth being someone who only sees their point if view and claims to see yours, but shoots it down instantly.

    Compromising is knowing when to leave well enough alone. Compromising is akin to winning $20,000 at roulette and walking away, rather than risk everything just to double your winnings. Compromising is knowing a person isn’t perfect and accepting some shortcomings knowing they only care for you and want to make you happy. What more could you ask for in a mate?

47. Helen 47

    Karl R 34: Lori Gottlieb is definitely not the global arbiter of whether you or anyone else has settled, so I agree. Yet it’s odd how often people on the outside judge whether others have “settled,” when in fact those who were deemed to have settled are probably very happy with their choices. They know their own mates better than anyone else, and people on the outside tend to focus primarily on looks. Relationships are far more than that.
     
    Zaq 45: I’ve heard that globally and across all ages, people deem faces more attractive if they are left-right symmetrical and if certain facial features conform to particular ratios (e.g., eye spacing relative to facial width, or chin length relative to facial length).  But I think Katarina 41 and 44 was talking about more than just looks when she mentioned attractiveness.  Attraction is also about intelligence, personality compatibility, etc.  And she is right in saying that everyone does have his or her match – it’s just a matter of finding that match.
     
    Finally: does anyone else feel like laughing when looking at that photo for this thread? The woman’s expression seems to indicate that SHE thinks she settled.

48. Karl R 48

    Zaq said: (#45)
    “studies show that beauty is NOT in the sight of the beholder, it is pretty objective really.”

    Could you post a link to one of these studies?

    I’m not saying these studies don’t exist. I’ve seen one rather credible one, but I’m unable to find it online. The only ones I can find online had rather questionable methodology.

    But from what I recall of the credible study, even objective standards are far from universal.

    For example, it is recognized that facial symmetry is a widely accepted objective standard of beauty. This particular study would take portraits of individuals, then use computers to modify each picture twice: once to make it more symmetrical, once to make it less symmetrical. The researchers then surveyed people by showing them these pairs of photos side-by-side and asking which “twin” was more attractive. 81% found that the more symmetrical pictures were more attractive.

    What fascinated me, however, was that 19% found the less symmetrical pictures to be more attractive. For an accepted “universal” and ”objective” standard of beauty, having 1 in 5 people consistently choose the other way is huge.

49. Ruby 49

    Helen #47

    Funny you mentioned the photo, since it had been bugging me too! I read it differently, though. I see the bride as a somewhat average-looking woman who is the one being settled for, and her slightly sour expression indicated that she knows it.

    Zaq #45

    Plenty of men might reject a woman based on her average or below average looks.

50. Saint Stephen 50

    Ruby #49
    That’s apples to orange. Plenty of women might also reject men for having an average or below average looks.
    And about the photo; My perception of it was same as yours. Evan has a way of digging out photos that goes in accordance with the blog post. A typical reflection of the title.

51. Nicole 51

    Actually, @Zaq, beauty isn’t so universal, and a lot of markers of beauty are VERY culture specific.  Skin color, hair texture, eye color, body shape, all are ways that people from different cultural, ethnic, and racial backgrounds might have different tastes.  

    But if you want to pretend that what a person in Nigeria finds attractive is the same as what someone in China finds attractive go right ahead.  

    A lot of our tastes are based upon what we look like.  Some of us decide what we see in the media is the best, some of us ignore it b/c it looks nothing like us (again, I’m talking mostly about race).  

    Plenty of people dismiss entire races of people as being universally unattractive and undateable, and no, not everyone who isn’t for example, white and blond is hopelessly ugly, yet many people more or less buy into that idea.  

    But I do know that if i show a series of pictures to men and women from different countries and different races, they won’t all find the same things to be beautiful.  

    So the person who you find to be ugly and who you think is entitled to only another ugly person could very well be very attractive to someone else for reasons that you will never be able to comprehend.

    However, we aren’t in high school, and there is way more to finding a lifetime of happiness than marrying the hottest guy or girl in the room.

52. Ellen 52

    this is in response to K 37 who wrote: Question from someone who isn’t married.  I see people on here talking about their failed marriage after 17-25 years.  Unless those were miserable years, wouldn’t 25 years with someone be considered a fairly successful marriage?

    Yes K I DO consider my last marriage a success even though it ended in divorce (my idea). Yes K, I wish more people had your mindset!!!

    And instead of endlessly fixated on the half of marriages that don’t work we should celebrate the approx. 50% that do.

    And finally K, I was fairly happy the entire time. It’s just that after 50, and studies/stats show this, a woman, if she has options or is just brave will weigh whether she wants to age with her mate (a mate she finds increasingly inadequate to her needs) or maybe make an exit after raising children perhaps. Many wait til their parents die as divorce is so stigmatized in a way still. Anyway, I think something roughly like 60% of divorces are initiated by women after age 50.

53. P 53

    Those studies about attractiveness have to be taken in the right context. Yes, more symmetrical faces are generally found to be more attractive from a purely aesthetic standpoint (point to note: The other 19% didn’t necessarily think the less symmetrical face was more attractive–many were simply undecided between the two). This also applies to practically ALL objects (not just faces) and is related to how the brain generally processes visual information. Symmetrical objects along a single plane are generally easier for the brain to process in terms of pattern recognition. As it is easier, it “feels” better to look at such things, and therefore we interpret that as more aesthetically pleasing or “attractive.” 

    The big point here is that is simply ”attractive” on a basic aesthetic level. Sexual attraction, emotional attraction, and so forth are not entirely or predominantly bound by this basic visual processing cue. LOTS of other things come into play as when it comes down to it your overall attraction for another person has a GREAT deal to do with your psychology–not simple visual processing. Cultural comparisons and studies have shown that a LOT of what we deem attractive in others is LEARNED–by the society we are in, by the events in our life, and so forth, and they are projected outwardly and onto others into evaluations of physical traits (or being blinded to them in the converse sense).

    Ever found someone to be “so-so” in your attraction to them and then after getting to know them they gradually become more attractive to you?  Ever had an extremely ”attractive” individual draw you in and then they talk, express ideas, and so forth and suddenly (although their appearance attractiveness hasn’t changed) they seem less attractive to you?  That’s your MIND at work.  

54. P 54

    Oh, almost forgot. What those rather famous (or infamous) studies about facial attractiveness failed to account for was memory processing. Yes, an initial view of a more plane-symmetrical face is generally perceived to be more aesthetically pleasing (as well as other objects) for the reasons I gave. HOWEVER, further studies show that unless a VERY high degree of asymmetry exists which creates constant confusion for the brain (very difficult to achieve in a face), people exposed to the same types of examples (symmetrical vs. slightly asymmetrical) repeatedly start to lose their initial preference. The reason for this is once the brain has been repeatedly exposed to the minor asymmetry and has commited it to memory (it no longer needs to use its “front-line” pattern recognition to recognize it) this cancels out the somewhat greater processing difficulty.

    In other words, even asymmetrical people’s faces become easier on the eyes the longer we are exposed to them. 

55. Zaq 55

    From what I’ve read, most physically attractive attributes are non cultural.
    I realize that  fatter people may be deemed attractive in societies where most people do not get enough to eat.

    Babies pay more attention to people with beautiful faces, so this is hard wired and not learned. More to the point, ugliness is literally repulsive, and it is easy to see the evolutionary forces in play.
    What may occur is that the brain is attracted to faces that are “average”. That is with characteristics such as eye width etc less far away from the norm. Such faces will be symmetrical, but that may be a bi-product. 

    There was another study that showed that men in an amazon tribe not influenced by western culture had exactly the same view of which females were the most attractive as we would have. They used the word “ripe” and the girls were about 15.
    It is just evolution telling us who is most fertile.

    I thought it interesting that the OK Cupid study on physical attractiveness showed that thousands of men exhibited a very high level of agreement on who they considered attractive, and produced a perfect normal distribution curve, with those rated as a 5 (think it was a 10 scale) right in the middle with the highest frequency.

    The other follow on from this I think is that the men could not have compared the women to a distorted “hollywood” norm, otherwise the graph would have been skewed.
    The results for women were highly skewed, with most men being scored less than a 5, which is ridiculous, but shows what powerful evolutionary forces are pushing women to accept only a minority of men.

     

56. Hope 56

    I’m actually not that surprised by the article.  I think it’s important to note that men are saying, according to the study, that they would be willing to marry a woman they were not in love with as long as she had all the other attributes they were looking for in a mate.  That’s an important qualification! 
    This, to me, is the way men (and women) have approached marriage for a very long time.  What I wonder is: has this study been performed before? I would be interested to see whether the responses have  changed all that much over time.
    Maybe the article should have been titled “Less and Less Women Are Settling For Mr. Good Enough”…I doubt if men have changed all that much, but I think women have.  
    It makes me think of this line from “Mad Men”:
    Don Draper: She won’t get married because she’s never been in love: I think I wrote that to sell nylons.Don Draper: By love you mean big lightning bolts to the heart, where you can’t eat and you can’t work, and you just run off and get married and make babies. The reason you haven’t felt is because it doesn’t exist. What you call love was invented by guys like me…to sell nylons.
    The way I see it, men have always approached marriage with a sense of practicality.  Women once had little choice and were read fairy tales to make them forget about that fact…now women have plenty of choice but have held on to the fairy tales, forgetting they were never real.
    Plus…the study doesn’t seem to mention how many married men have also had affairs : )

57. Observer 57

    Lots of subjective observations here and a large number of them are no more than anecdotal.

    The simple question that seemed to be posed was: Do men settle and perhaps with more frequency than women for what might be described as a less than “perfect” mate?

    But what seems to be missing from many of the commentaries is the fact that the perceptions of what is a desirable mate is, subjectively, in the eyes of the beholder; and consequently cannot be quantified into a simplistic, purported logic of a “7 settling for a 5″.  The comments from Karl R help to reinforce my comment.

    Am I an objective observer of these dating/mating “patterns”?  I do not know because I am an old married (>27 years) man these days.  Did I settle or did my wife settle?  Neither in my opinion, I tend to think that I was fortunate enough to meet and marry her because she is the best life’s partner, and mother (3 grown children), that I could have found.  There are also some comments here about the “decline” of sexual activity in some marriages that endured for a “long time”, said decline attributed to, perhaps, “settling”.  If this is considered valid, then I definitely know that I did not settle because my wife and I literally exhausted each other sexually (multiple mutual orgasms) last Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.  Which isn’t too bad of a performance for a 66 year old man!

     

58. Christie Hartman 58

    Zaq (55): You are only focusing on part of what those OkCupid data show. Look again: yes, the men rated women in an arc-shaped pattern, but they ACTUALLY EMAILED the hot ones. And while more women did judge men’s photos as below average, they ACTUALLY EMAILED these “below average” men. Your comment that “powerful evolutionary forces are pushing women to accept only a minority of men” doesn’t really ring true. There could be many reasons these women are so tough on these men’s photos. I can think of two: 1) men’s online photos are often poor quality and don’t do the men justice, and 2) perhaps women don’t respond to photos the same way men do.

59. John 59

    “ Marrying your 2nd, 3rd or 4th option is an insult to the other person. They deserve better and so do you.”

    I think most people are making too many assumptions. Just because you THINK someone is your number one does not necessarily mean you’re right. As we mature, our needs tend to change, and what constitutes a best at a certain time in life is probably so-so at other times. The trick to making a long term decision is to look for someone you have something for now, and who can adapt to inevitable changes in the future. 

60. John 60

    From Ellen #36
    “I’m with Jane #12- settling seldom works. She made it work for 17 years, I made it work for 25!!! (I kinda settled for a man I thought I loved so as to have children- but it took me years to figure out ’cause I did it subconsciously I think).”

    When you’re married to a person for 25 years, you’re no longer settling. Are you kiddin’ me? You can’t be that good and he that bad that you did not equate your levels after 25 years of marriage. No matter what you thought you settled for 25 years earlier, you do not deserve anyone better when you “figured it out” 25 years later, unless abuse, unfaithfulness or other similar issues were involved. And, to top it up, you said you “thought” you loved him. What a bunch of BS.
    There was really nothing to figure out. This society has turned women into insatiable and entitled princesses who make decisions like kids in a candy store. Where is the maturity in all the crap written above?

    “The results for women were highly skewed, with most men being scored less than a 5, which is ridiculous, but shows what powerful evolutionary forces are pushing women to accept only a minority of men.”

    It’s not evolutionary forces; it’s the brainwashing by feminism that makes women think they are more evolved than men. The belief is so widespread in the west it is quite amazing. No wonder many women will remain single for a long time, because no partner wants to be considered inferior.

61. AnnieC 61

    @17

    You are talking about a very real phenomenon that is happening way, way too often.

    Look up the concept of Co-dependancy, although your experience pretty much reflects what happens.

    A man/woman need the “drama” that another creates, because they need to either be in a high state of anxiety(the white knight/rescuer) or they need unconditional love and push and push a person to give it to them. These are the Narccisistic personality disordered people matching up with borderline personality individuals(as an example).

    When you come across some-one like this, you just have to walk away. People who feel uncomfortable with genuine kindness and acceptance, have issues that you will not be able to resolve for them.

    @P 53

    That was fascinating. You sound like you really do know what you are talking about. Thanks for posting that.

62. AnnieC 62

    Reading all these comments, I really think there is a growing problem in people’s ability to love and desire some-one for who they are, rather than what they “do for me” or “make me feel”.

    One of the simplest way’s to change ones mind-set is to gain a sense of gratitude(I said simplest way not easiest). People have become increasingly entitled(both men and women), and no longer seem to even be able to recognize what another does for them.

    No-one is entitled to anything. Not friendship, not a job, not an education, not good health and certainly not love. But we have become so spoiled, believing these things are rights, that we have lost our sense of gratitude and ultimately our capacity to be humble.

    If a man goes out and provides for his family, how often does the wife, say to him “Thank you for working so hard for us?”. If a woman does choose to stay at home and work hard on producing a nice home, healthy happy children and supports her husband, how often does he say “Thank you?”

    We seem to think it’s the other persons JOB to do and say things for us. Gain a grateful heart, and you will recognize that people are choosing to do things and say things for you, only then will you feel genuine love, rather than entitled desires.

    It is quite easy to love and romantically desire a person, regardless of how they look, when you have a grateful heart.

    It does however, unfortunately go against what our ego’s demand. That’s why it must be practiced and learned.
     

63. Dagaz 63

    i don’t understand the point of the article, frankly speaking.
    marriage – it’s a lot of work. inner and outside. it’s a lot of compromising and dealing with own dark sides, which you had no idea they were existing.
    it is never easy (i’ve been married twice). it’s not easy when the mutual feeling between the spouses is strong and vivid – perhaps, author cannot imagine how hard it becomes when people faces all those challenges without such support as love.
    no. no marriage “just because”, please.

64. Zaq 64

    @58 Christie Hartman

    Sorry Christie, but there are so many studies showing the same thing over and over again. Women rejecting average men.

    In speed date studies, the women select far fewer men than the men do women.
    In the Freakonomics study, which backs up the OK Cupid study, the men did indeed contact the “hot”women, but they contacted the average women too, just not as frequently.
    Whereas the women ONLY contacted/ replied to the most attractive men.
    These are studies involving many thousands of dating interactions.

    I have not seen a single study that shows that men are pickier than women. Scientists have advanced the hypothesis that women, having a limited supply of eggs, and a huge investment in the  bi product of sexual interactions that they have evolved to be picky.

    Trouble is women’s expectations have increased as a result of having more control over their life to the point where they defer mate choice to time when they no longer have much to offer the opposite sex.

    I love the quote on a female friend’s  facebook page.
    “If all men are the same, why do women take so long to choose one ?”
    Why indeed 

65. Ruby 65

    I find the comments that women might be pickier than men because they have become entitled, feminist princesses, laughable, and say more about that particular person’s discomfort with gender equality than anything else.
    One the the theories that scientists have long believed is that women are more selective because they are more invested in potential offspring. Women carry a child for nine months of pregnancy, and therefore want to choose a good partner. They also tend to be less interested in casual sex. But a recent study I read about suggested that the act of approaching increases desire. The researchers set up speed-dating events. Sometimes the men rotated between different women and did the approaching, and other times, the men did. The researchers found that, regardless of gender, whomever was doing the approaching “experienced greater romantic desire, chemistry, and eagerness to see a speed date again compared to those who sat.” The initiators also felt more self-confidence than those who sat still. Since men are traditionally expected to approach women, this could be another explanation as to why women are more selective.

66. Evan Marc Katz 66

    @Ruby: “One the the theories that scientists have long believed is that women are more selective because they are more invested in potential offspring.”

    What about all of the selective women over the age of 45? Is that also biology?

67. Ruby 67

    EMK #65
    <<What about all of the selective women over the age of 45? Is that also biology?>>
    Is it your experience that women over 45 are more selective than men over 45? I’d say that is not the case, at least among the women I know, who have had to become less selective in their choices as they’ve aged. However, men over 45 have more options in terms of their partner’s age; not only can they date older, but they can date several years younger, something that is still more difficult for women, so maybe they can afford to be choosier. But as the study I cited shows, there is likely more than one explanation for men’s and women’s selection behaviors, including both biological and social influences. At any age, men are still expected to do the approaching, and women remain less interested in casual sex, even when they don’t have to worry about pregnancy.

68. Evan Marc Katz 68

    You’re partially right and partially wrong, Ruby.

    You’re right that women over 45 SHOULD become less selective because they have fewer options. However, older women are actually MORE SELECTIVE. Here’s two random things that I found to support that point:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21391407

    http://advice.eharmony.com/blog/2011/11/22/dating-preferences-change-with-age/

69. Ruby 69

    EMK #68
     
    Could it be that older women are more selective because old habits die hard? In another way, maybe they can be choosier because they don’t have to worry about their biological clocks. Also, by the time a woman is older, she has accumulated more resources, and is less reliant on financial support from a man. The research suggests that older people in general are more set in their ways. As one of the studies noted, older singles are “eager to meet the right person, but not desperate to meet just anyone.”

70. P 70

    @Ruby

    While I find the use of “princesses” and other comments about women’s relationship expectations offensive personally as I don’t see the need for derogatory language, there actually is a point here that’s being more and more widely recognized by those like myself who are in the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Women’s marriage (and long-term relationship) expectations have become increasingly unrealistic from the standpoint of maintaining said relationships over time.

    To qualify this, and derail any start of the “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” arguments, this isn’t about inherent qualities in the gender.  Rather, its a byproduct of a changing society where societal values have skewed the course (and again, this isn’t saying which way is better–its just a statement of observational fact). Its an environmental byproduct, related to the differences in how women and men are raised and cultured in society.

    Consider marriage. Marriage, or ceremonious unions like it, have been around a long time. However, throughout history, the primary purpose of marriage (or life-long pair bonding) has not been driven predominantly by romance, sexual drive or attraction, or even our modern concept of ”romantic love.”  Throughout history, such unions were predominantly socioeconomic methods of support between partners and families. They were held together by a number of things, with duty and familiar advancement (or maintenance) being a highly valued goal.  Yes, there was the “lack of choice” element as well…but that’s often misunderstood today in this age of widely swinging feminist rhetoric. Its misunderstood by many that it was women who were the ones without choice when in fact, it was often both parties who entered into such unions under those circumstances. Both sides were taught, by society, to maintain their unions for the sake of family, tribe, and so forth, and were duty-bound to do so. A lot of this has become very misunderstood by current mass-media depictions of historical relationships.     

    What is also misunderstood is that many of these unions DID involve “love” as they were striving towards a common goal. No, it wasn’t the concept we have today of “romantic love” where there is an obsessive desire for one another. In fact, throughout most of history both men AND women have written about the temporary nature of such passions and have cautioned one another about believing such feelings to be anything but transitory. Yes–BOTH men and women have written about this throughout history and have passed on such teachings to their children.

    When viewed from a social standpoint, this concept of marriage actually worked out fairly well. The values that kept marriages functional were in place rather firmly and were reinforced by religious views, state views, and so forth.

    A few hundred years ago, some things began to change. During the romantic period, the Victorian era, and so forth there was a slight nudge in the direction towards marrying for “love”–with a redefinition of “love” as being the “eros love” or as we call it today, “romantic love.” There was also a de-emphasis which began on the teachings that this type of “love” is temporary and an emerging emphasis on the belief that such feelings COULD be held indefinitely by an individual.

    Most of this remained low-level and on the outskirts of how functional unions operated for most people in society for quite some time. Romantic fiction was written of course–but in reality most people still viewed such things as fantastic tales and exactly what it was: fiction.

    Fast forward a bit into feminism as it began to emerge into the general population of western society in the past few decades. In addition to this, we now live in a culture that has become extremely sexual in nature, and has a mass media engine that continuously bombards people with messages about how things “should be.” Couple that with much easier access to romantic fiction and messages, and now we have a culture which indicates marriage’s primary purpose is a union between people based on “romantic love” and the endurance of such love. The value system of society has changed from familiar duty and common goal creation to one of self and overwhelming “feeling.” Because of traditions built up during the beginnings of the “romantic periods”, women ARE still told “faery tales” and are bombarded by faery-tale like messages by the media and even self-supporting systems that have grown into place.  Conversely, by a large degree, men are still taught somewhat to take a more practical view of marriage and pair-bonding–although that has taken an impact as well it just hasn’t been as pervasive as it has been with women.  Again, this is not saying one is “better” or “worse” than the other–its simply a behavioral quality that is learned from society.

    Simply put, its a recipe for epic disaster psychologically when it comes to the concept of marriage and we are seeing that, and have been seeing that in the failure rate we have today.  Why is this a disaster?  Well, because the concept of marriage is still that of a “permanent” union, but the expectation of what that union contains have changed from a value system that centered on family well-being (and less on innate “feeling”) to a more self-centered view of personal feelings and, unfortunately, an over-sexualized emphasis on rather temporary “romantic” bases. 

    Now, before anyone goes off saying “well, the previous concept of marriage sounded awful” I’ll say–of course it does.  To what you’ve been indoctrinated into in this society right now. Despite what the mass media depictions of societal life in the past might have you think, there’s a LOT of historical evidence that marriages of past were NOT considered (by either party) to be a miserable state of co-habitation. There was in fact “love”–but it just wasn’t the “romantic love” concept we have today. The love described was more akin to familiar and supportive–much more commonly referred to as “friendship” love today. And, as I said, our ancestors KNEW that “romantic” or “eros” and obsessive “love” was a fleeting, temporary thing.  The psychology was different…there was no expectation that such “feelings” could ever be maintained and therefore there was no quest to create such within a union. Expecations were different.  Its ironic that our ancestors knew about these fallacies and actively worked towards cautioning people to take care in such fantasy, and yet today we actively PUSH such fantasies as being expectations.

    Back to my point though.  Ruby, the reality is that women ARE more selective biologically and to some degree due to their limited fertility.  HOWEVER…and this is HUGE however…that increased “selectivity” only applies to MATING.  Lest we forget, the MATING instinct is NOT permanent between people. Biologically, we are NOT monogamous creatures.  That instinct lasts long enough to mate, create an offspring, and allow it to reach a certain age (and…that age is not 18…its along the lines of 5). Then, we wander off and create a different offspring with a new partner in order to propagate proper gene expression.  THAT is what romantic “feelings” and romantic “love” embodies. THOSE feelings.  By default, they are temporary, and for a very good biological reason–at least from a historical perspective. 

    The problem with this and marriage is…marriage was not originally designed to be a vehicle for the expression of the mating instinct.

    So it all comes down to this.  If you need constant “romantic” love in your life, then fine.  Be a serial monogamist…or a polyamorous individual.  But…marriage, as its currently defined, was meant to be a commitment between two people to remain together for OTHER reasons.  If you don’t value those other reasons as much as “romantic” love feelings, then you have no business considering marrying anyone. Its a simple as that. You can’t build a life-long relationship with someone when you have expectations that cannot rationally come to fruition.
            

      
                    

71. AnnieC 71

    @70. Best explanation I’ve read to date. Thanks for that

72. Michael17 72

    EMK #66: What Ruby said. People who no longer have the drive to reproduce “should” become even more fussy. See now, what’s the rush? There’s no biological clock ticking anymore.

73. Alphan Njogu 73

    This conversation is really interesting. The divergent views given here practically show how the human nature can prove to be hard to understand. No wonder not everyone feels the referenced study is spot on. While it’s a bright idea to wait for a soul mate, and well and good if she eventually shows up, not everyone will find his or her perfect match. Living happily ever after doesn’t necessarily mean a perfect life. If there’s a reasonable percentage of the things you’d want to see in a man or a woman, settling would be a perfect thing to do. The remaining percentage will take shape as you grow together as complements.

74. Michael17 74

    I’m not putting too much stock in this survey, by the way. I haven’t read through all of the other posts, so I don’t know if this has been said already–apologies if it has–but this is my main beef: People are answering HYPOTHETICAL questions in this survey. How they might act if it actually comes time to make a decision could be quite different.

    Thing is, there are a lot of guys who feel powerless in dating, as there are women. They would have a hard time imagining themselves in a relationship with a woman who meets all their criteria, and not being happy. They also might have been caught by the survey at a frustrating time for them dating-wise. Hey if the last 5 women turned down a second date because of something known as The Chemistry Thing, the idea of settling down with someone does seem rather appealing! They might feel differently once they are in a relationship.

    What’s the saying: If you want to find out how someone really would act, follow their actions and not their words? I think that follows here.

     

75. Francesca 75

    I think the study misses the point a little. I think when it comes to marriage aspect of the relationship its not about how the other person makes you feel. Its about how you make the other person feel. So from that point of view being in “love” is a bit unnecessary.  Doing things for the other person, feeling happy because you’ve made someone else happy. Regardless of how much you want to do the item in question. 

    My Mum used to say “your nana sounds grumpy, but she loves you because she made you this stew”. I think there is a lot of truth to that, and I have found it to be true in all my relationships with friends and family. 

76. Jadafisk 76

    2. Additionally, single women in our society who want to enjoy the company of children are given many opportunities to do so. In some communities, they’re expected to take part in caregiving activities, even if they aren’t so inclined. Single men are not, and their only legitimate and non-socially suspect means of regularly doing so is as a parent. That’s going to put some pressure on a man who already wants to be a father.

77. M 77

    Comments 7 and 8 are very bright and thoughtful.

    Of course men settle. What’s the alternative? When you have been rejected by the first 10, 20 or more women you have approached in your life, you can either ask some more out or give up for good.

78. Kirt 78

    This doesn’t seem that surprising as there really are few good women available. So many women completely let themselves go, so if a man wants a reasonably fit or at least thin woman, he might have to take what he can get. Contrary to what women might think, no man really wants to marry a promiscuous woman either, but many men will have to settle for that if they want to settle down and start a family.

79. Paragon 79

    @ P 70

    Great post(I’ve bookmarked this discussion).

    And yes, short-term/long-term mating really are competing evolutionary strategies with dispirate optima, which explains why the stability of a long-term fitness strategy(like marriage) is not well served where short-term benefits(ie.
    physical attraction in short term mating) accrue at the expense of long-term ones(which female sexual choice will always press for, given a stronger qualitative bias compared
    to males).

    But, I would add that, in evolutionary terms, the only dynamic which works to ensure systemic pair-bonding(in the form of
    social monogamy) is bi-parental advantage(where stable parental-pair bonds accord a competitive advantage in offspring success).

    The problem is, these advantages will erode through a relaxation of ecological stress(such
    as prevails in prosperous developed world populations), in turn relaxing the pressures which would otherwise constrain a ruinous mating latitude(again, particularly with respect to the limiting sex – females).

    Beyond merely rendering marriage ‘unreliable’, this will precipitate population trends towards sub-replacement fertility, and consequent evolutionary instability(ie. the demographic economic paradox).

80. Helen 80

    P 70: I echo those who say that yours is an excellent post.

    The one thing I would add is that reliable birth control played a major role in shifting how we think about marriage today. You are correct in pointing out that marriages used to be about what was good for the family as a whole – well, that nearly always included children. In historical times, children were necessary to help on a smaller scale with the family business, and on a larger scale with keeping the society populated and thriving.

    Today, that is no longer the case in most parts of the world. Couples can marry for the sake of enjoying each others’ company without children. It is a lot easier to take care of two adults than it is to include children in the mix, so people naturally focus more on gratifying themselves. Moreover, because children are no longer an economic or societal necessity, the way we think about children has shifted as well. Many couples think of children as a pleasure – almost as a luxury good, if you will – than as a critical component to maintaining familial or tribal livelihood.

    I’m not passing judgment on people seeking to gratify themselves in marriage. This is what our society has been working toward for millennia: making everyday life more convenient and flexible, so our descendants would have the opportunity to live easier lives and enjoy themselves. Of course, the truth is that few things make us more genuinely happy than working hard toward a worthwhile goal, and that message can get lost in the shuffle of self-gratification.

81. Cat 81

    I think men settle all the time. In reality all men want a super hot wife, but all men can’t get a super hot wife, so they settle for who they meet & fall in love with & then just fantasize about a super hot wife the rest of their life. lol…That’s the reality of it. All the men I know would LOVE to be married to a super hot woman I’m sure, but they still “love” the wife they have. It’s unavoidable because men are so absolutely driven by the visual, that’s just real life. And if said men did have a super hot wife, he’d still be fantasizing about other super hot women…I am convinced that men & women love so completely differently. Men settle all the time. And they are never completely satisfied with their wife’s appearance and continually need the visual stimulation of other women for life.

82. hespeler 82

    Cat 81,

    Are you a man or woman because that’s a pretty darn good description of the male psyche right there…

83. James 83

    I think there is a difference between men and women when it comes to how we rate each other. Us ‘men’ can look at a woman who may have a nice set of jugs and a nice rear end but an average face and we may rank her as ‘hot’.  But when women see a man who has a nice body but average face they me rank him as just average or even below average. Women seem to critique each other much harsher as well.  I see women all the time that I think are hot but other women don’t rank those women nearly as high. I do agree with many of the comments on here that women are pickier about looks then men are.  I have also found that, now I am in my mid 30′s, I appreciate more things about a woman which may make her more attractive to me. How she carries herself, her attitude, and her self esteem all effect how attractive I see her. I think that women who cant get past looks and to a certain extent “settle”,  will have a very hard time finding the ‘one’.

84. Helen 84

    Zaq wrote: “The results for women were highly skewed, with most men being scored less than a 5, which is ridiculous, but shows what powerful evolutionary forces are pushing women to accept only a minority of men.”
     
    Is it really “ridiculous”? Let me throw this idea out there: that the reason men’s looks on average scored below 5 is because women are unconsciously comparing men not just among themselves, but also among women. And maybe women really are, on average, more attractive than men. I don’t mean biologically; I mean socially. We wear a lot more makeup, invest more in our clothes, and care more for our hair and bodies. In fact, if we WEREN’T more attractive than men after all our additional effforts, then we’d have to have been much uglier to begin with au naturel!

85. Karl R 85

    Helen said: (#84)
    “Let me throw this idea out there: that the reason men’s looks on average scored below 5 is because women are unconsciously comparing men not just among themselves, but also among women.”
     
    Is a 5’7″ person tall or short?
     
    I don’t call a 5’7″ woman short, even if she’s several inches shorter than me. She’s clearly above average height. Similarly, a 5’7″ man is clearly below average height.
     
    Helen asked: (#84)
    “Is it really ‘ridiculous’?”
     
    If someone is incapable of consciously avoiding the kind of comparison that you hypothesize…
     
    Yes. It’s ridiculous.

86. Cat 86

    @hespeler (81)…I’m a woman. Very much still learning about men in my older age. My husband has forced me to learn some hard lessons & sadly I am much less optimistic about men in general. But glad I was right on about men & settling, I think it happens all the time. 

87. James 87

    @Helen
     (#84)
    I have to cry foul here. Your trying to compare apples to oranges here. Comparing the sexiness of a man with the sexiness of a woman is like comparing dogs to cats. Men have distinct different traits that would make them attractive that are totally different with what makes a woman attractive.  Everyone has their own taste as to what is attractive and what is not, but most of the time women would consider masculine traits to be attractive in a man. (facial hair, hard muscles, etc). On a woman attraction would be more feminine traits, (curves, boobs etc).  I don’t know how you can compare the two.  I think the reason men rate women higher on the looks scale is because most men have the ability to rank a woman based on separate features. A woman with an average face but a very nice body would most likely be ranked as “hot” by men. A woman with a VERY pretty face and just above average body can still be ranked as ‘hot”. Where as a man with an average face and a very nice body may only get “above average” rank from women. When it comes to looks it seems most women are much pickier then they care to admit.

88. Lynn 88

    The men described in the article are the ones who will divorce you 7 years later, saying “I love you but I’m not *in* love with you.” The cliche to end all cliches. I once worked with a guy who complained bitterly about his wife at the office, constantly. Apparently, she was his mom’s business partner, and his mom wanted them to get together, so he married her. Spineless!!!

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply