Study Suggests Women and Men Have More in Common When It Comes To Choosing a Partner
- Masculine & Feminine Energy, Understanding Men
It turns out that men and women may have a lot more in common than we thought – even when it comes to picking someone to settle down with. In fact, Sciencedaily.com reports on recent findings from Northwestern University, where they conducted research through a series of speed dating events.
“When women were assigned to the traditionally male role of approaching potential romantic partners, they were not any pickier than men in choosing that special someone to date, according to the speed dating study. That finding, of course, is contrary to well established evolutionary explanations about mate selection. An abundance of such research suggests that women are influenced by higher reproductive costs (bearing and raising children) than men and thus are much choosier when it comes to love interests.”
“Deviating from standard speed-dating experiments – and from the typical conventions at professional speed-dating events – women in the study were required to go from man to man during their four-minute speed dates half the time, rather than always staying put. In most speed-dating events, the women stay in one place as the men circulate.”
“Regardless of gender, those who rotated experienced greater romantic desire for their partners, compared to those who sat throughout the event. The rotators, compared to the sitters, tended to have a greater interest in seeing their speed-dating partners again.”
There are so many questions that come up. Do you think that speed dating offers scientific opportunities for studying romantic attraction in action? Do you think that in an ever-changing society, women’s and men’s roles in the pursuit of romance are becoming more alike? Please share your thoughts and questions with the rest of us.
Steve says
Do you think that speed dating offers scientific opportunities for studying romantic attraction in action?
No.
Alternative and just as bad/good theories could be used to explain the results in the quote. Maybe women are more liberal in their choices when they are not looking for a father or an LTR. Maybe sitters, of either sex, have more interest in staying in touch because of psychological reflex to make them grab at something fleeting. On and on.
Do you think that in an ever-changing society, women’s and men’s roles in the pursuit of romance are becoming more alike?
I think it opens doors to negative and positive changes, but I don’t think it will ever make the roles in dating the same. I think there is a lot more flexibility in the sex roles than most people do, but I think certain aspects of it are hard wired into our biology.
Honey says
Ah, one of the many reasons I’m jealous I never did speed-dating before I found the BF! He and I both think it sounds like a lot of fun.
They should do speed-friending for couples!
Honey´s last blog post…Good News Follows Good News: Or, LinkedIn Works!?
Mr_Right says
I think being the pursuer, rather than the pursuee, is probably what made the difference. It seems like they would be taking a more active role in finding a mate by rotating between matches, thus having them be more involved in the process.
To answer your questions about speed dating offering scientific opportunities, I would say, yes, but it’s only a subset, you can’t make general statements from that.
To answer your other question about gender roles, I would say that there are still some ingrained instincts that men and women have that play a part, and if you go against those instincts, it might cause conflict and problems.
Just my $0.02
Mikko Kemppe says
I agree with Steve and Mr_right. Although the pursuit of romance between sexes may have become more alike in our modern world, I don’t think it will ever make the roles in dating the same, as I also believe that our hard wiring is simply still too different. Although who knows what we’ll be like in another million years if us humans are still around.
But surely speed dating offers some scientific opportunities for studying romantic attraction in action.
This is what Eli Finkel, associate professor of psychology in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences at Northwestern and co-investigator of the study said: “The mere act of physically approaching a potential partner, versus being approached, seemed to increase desire for that partner” confirming Mr_Right’s hunch.
I think just because the desire increased for their partner in women when they were the pursuers it does not necessarily give evidence that this desire will translate into long term passion and lasting attraction. I think to achieve that it is still healthy to be aware of our more traditional roles. I.e., for men to be the pursuer and women to be the pursuee.
Mikko Kemppe´s last blog post…Do Men Just Want Sex? Should My Decision Be To Wait Or Not To Wait?
Paul says
I don’t think you can get away from how we are wired…men are the hunter/gatherers, and women are caretakers. men are the initiators, the pursuers. It is why our shoulders are wider (to drag heavy weapons on the hunt, and then drag the kill back to the village) and all kinds of things simular to that. You can try to change the traditional male/female gender roles all you want, but there will always be a male role and a female role to play in relationships, in not only in the enticing of romance part, but in household chores, raising of the children, and all those other things couples do. Now, men might play the womens role and vise versa, but there will still always be roles that each of us have. I wonder if in the speed dating experiment, women just got kinda excited because for once they get to have a little more control of the pursuing, which society tells them they ought to have the right to do. Just another example of how womens lib has messed things up!
casualencounters.com/blog says
I never understood speed-dating. And I still don’t.
casualencounters.com/blog´s last blog post…Weekly Roundup – Top 10 Casual Sex Links from Around the Web
Honey says
@ Paul, well you can’t take back women’s lib! And what will happen as the “new woman” becomes more entrenched is that you will have a bunch of women who don’t care whether they end up with someone or not, and a bunch of guys who DO want something long-term but aren’t willing to compromise to get it. In that scenario, the guys are the ones who end up alone and miserable and the gals end up alone but not really feeling bad because of it.
In the end, since women can have children, they are able to dictate the terms under which any man is able to participate (or not) in a family unit. So it’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few decades.
FWIW, my gender roles with the BF are fairly traditional (at least right now) although we don’t want children so really things will probably change back and forth throughout our lives.
Honey´s last blog post…Get Fit and Improve Your Dating Prospects
Cilla says
@ Casual
I never understood Paul. And I still don’t..
“…household chores…”
“…how women’s lib messed things up…”
OY
Curly Girl says
Thanks for your cogent words, Honey!
Yes, you do notice that it is always men who are promoting this hardwiring theory and never the women. And they are forever talking about that hunter-gatherer stuff, even though it is clear that they don’t have the first understanding of what hunter-gathering societies are about! (I won’t go into it here, but please, I beg you—read up on it.) And–news flash–we don’t live in a hunter-gatherer society!!! DNA changes in response to environment! That is what Darwin showed with those experiments with the peas! Even if your hardwiring idea as the basis for human dating behavior had some merit (which is questionable in and of itself as dating didn’t exist until just recently), why would the hardwiring for one brief time in human history (the hunter-gatherer period) be that which determines all that comes after for millenia? And what about all the DNA encoding that came before the hunter-gatherer period? Was that all wiped out by the sight of a water buffalo and a breadfruit tree?
Does anybody THINK anymore??!!!!
Steve says
Honey Jun 21st 2009 at 03:42 pm 8
@ Paul, well you can’t take back women’s lib!
Not true. In the 1950s Iraq was actually far ahead of the culture in the U.S. as far as feminism goes. Now it is a nightmare befitting Handmaid’s tale.
In the end, since women can have children, they are able to dictate the terms under which any man is able to participate (or not) in a family unit.
Maybe or maybe not. EMK has not shortage of complaints from women about men staying away from them for various reasons. Including not shifting out of their business roles and competing with them. Then there are the common complaints from women about men not responding to them when they are approached in a certain way.
Honey says
@ Curly Girl, thanks! I’ve done extensive reading on hunter-gatherer societies (I work for a bunch of anthropologists) and it wasn’t much like it is typically portrayed, including how it has been portrayed here.
@ Steve re: Iran, a backlash against women’s rights isn’t the same thing as negating its occurrence. Though I appreciate the reference to Margaret Atwood!
re: women who complain, well, those women are still the ultimate decision-makers as to whether there will be a family…they just choose to compromise a little more because a) they aren’t aware of their own power, and b) they have a traditional (albeit recent traditional) definition of “family” that they don’t want to deviate from (I’m leaving out women whose socioeconomic circumstances force them to compromise for the sake of existence, though I think that will eventually change, too).
I just happen to think that the more time goes by, the less women are going to be willing to be the ones who compromise on those issues – and the more men are going to have to, otherwise they won’t be able to participate at all. The conservatives have one thing right – the nuclear family IS on its way out, at least as it has been envisioned in recent centuries.
I’m not campaigning one way or the other, just offering my observation about how society’s going to have to change in the next 50-100 years.
Honey´s last blog post…Good News Follows Good News: Or, LinkedIn Works!?
Honey says
sorry, Iraq.
Honey´s last blog post…Get Fit and Improve Your Dating Prospects
Selena says
@#7
Oh Cilla, LOL! I almost spit my tea all over my keyboard!
Curly Girl says
Oh. Here’s the Census link. Ha! Was way up on my high horse there for a minute and forgot the task at hand:
Steve says
re: women who complain, well, those women are still the ultimate decision-makers as to whether there will be a family
Not unless they want to do it alone with the aide of artificial insemination. There are some rugged individualists who have gone and who will go for that. It doubt that would be an appealing idea to most women. The ones who are being more different than most average men can handle are still writing into people like EMK trying to learn to how to adapt to get and keep a man.
I think your point about generation Y, having more “slackers”, grown men willing to be supported, will reshape gender roles. I don’t know how far as I also hear my early 20 something friends also complaining about such men.
Curly Girl says
I agree with Honey! I agree with Cilla! I agree with Selena!
And mention of The Handmaid’s Tale makes me sad that Natasha Richardson, who starred in the movie, is gone.
Which brings me to my next free associative thought: Anyone who thinks that women aren’t “hardwired” in a certain way is pretending that Liam Neeson does not exist.
Curly Girl says
And here is a link from Nerve that talks about speed-dating–an excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell’s book, “Blink.” Book discusses the split-second decisions we make and are unaware of. Interesting stuff!
http://www.nerve.com/screeningroom/books/thestorytellingproblem
Curly Girl says
Steve@14: Aaanndd here’s some Census data for you: Almost 1/3 of all children in the U.S. live in single-parent homes, the overwhelming majority of which are headed up by mothers (something like 87% of single-parent households). So, millions of women already are having or are raising children without men. I’m not sure that this statistic indicates the rise of a few “rugged individualists.”
One of the reason that the divorce laws are so draconian re: alimony and child support is that the state did not want to bear the financial responsibility for abandoned women and children. Abandoned/widowed women and children is also why welfare was created. So even in our laws and our social programs we see reflected the understanding that women raising children alone has always been a reality.
And yes, this has a psychological effect on us and on how we see men and relationship and on dating–I hold that this is much more in operation than our “wiring.”
The myth of the little nuclear family is just that– a myth. Look at your own family histories, if they are known. Everyone was in a tight little unit with a Dad at the helm?
Shalini says
I think its better that men are pursuers and women pursuee. Because i really don’t feel it makes us less liberated in any other sense. And how we date should really not be linked to any other aspects of women’s liberation.
Because i have seen what happens when a girl is the pursuer. It gets frustrating and irritating. When you do that men generally show a lot of attitude when they are being purused. It just does not work. Actually not only in dating but even friends of the same sex. If you are the one who is always calling the friend you will find yourself getting frustrated by how less they care about you.
I feel that to some degree its ok for women to pursue but only to some degree.
Shalini says
Its good to show the man you love him or like him. But thats it. If you start pursuing him you get frustrated because men wont do much if they feel you already love them. They dont feel the need to call and ask you to meet ever if you are the one doing that.
Steve says
Shalini Jun 22nd 2009 at 04:39 am 19
Because i have seen what happens when a girl is the pursuer. It gets frustrating and irritating. When you do that men generally show a lot of attitude when they are being pursued.
Welcome to our world 🙂
Ava says
I would guess that there is a more active investment in the other person for whomever is doing the pursuing. Doing the pursuing puts you in the position of being the rejected one, so there may be more of an investment in not being rejected, if nothing else.
The problem I have with speed dating, after having done it once, is that the few minutes of time you have to spend with anyone is just enough time to figure out if there is any chemistry or not. But that’s about it. You know if you think they’re attractive, maybe smart enough, have a few interests in common, but not much else. It’s hard to be all that picky with so little information.
mic says
Women are acting more like men, including pursuing the opposite sex based on looks. There is plenty of research to confirm that, although the study behind the blog entry is an interesting addition. How specifics of appearance and personality influence the hunt is where researchers ought to focus, along with the desperation factor, e.g., do women chase men when fewer men in the suitable category (age, etc.) are available?
Honey says
I contacted the BF first, and also “coerced” him into asking me on a date (we met on MySpace and I refused to add him as a friend until we’d met in person, which worked great).
Thereafter, the interest was so mutual that I don’t really think there was much “pursuing” on either side as much as trying it out to see if it was going anywhere. We agreed to be exclusive on our second date (which was a day after our first date!) so there was never any question about our status.
Honey´s last blog post…Good News Follows Good News: Or, LinkedIn Works!?
Shalini says
Hi Steve,
i totally sympathize with men. But i have always been in “your world”. And seen that it never works that way.. If i pursue someone i might make more efforts.. but the person i feel more “love” for is always the one who pursued me.. (if he has other qualities that i want).
I am happy being pursued!!!
Shalini says
This is because i resent always having to do everything in such relationships.. and in fact when i dont make an effort in such relationships its almost always the end.. Because i guess thats the way men are wired they feel more attraction for someone they have to pursue..
dadshouse says
I don’t think speed dating mirrors real life, whatsoever. So there’s no scientific basis in it, at all.
I attended a speed dating event here in Silicon Valley. Got there a little early. Every guy there looked like a handsome, fit, educated professional. Every woman looked a little frumpy and dumpy, like she needed some help finding a date. Huge disappointment. Of course, in SV, the guys often need help finding dates since there are way more single men than single women here. That was my first and last speed dating event.
dadshouse´s last blog post…Father and Teenage Daughter Go For a Run
Melissa says
No matter how you swallow it…. I’m more comfortable when the man is calling me first, texting me first… asking me out first….
I may TAKE the role of pursuer… but I never enjoy it. It doesen’t make me feel good. I’d much rather reciprocate than initiate.
Shalini says
mic,
“do women chase men when fewer men in the suitable category (age, etc.) are available?”
yes i guess it’s true. if i find some one i find suitable i might initially try to pursue him but, i can say this about myself i wont do it long (coz really i m through with it). I really dont do it if i know he does not thing about me romantically.
Joe says
Um, Mendel was the guy with the pea experiments, in the mid-19th century. And since DNA had not been discovered til the mid-20th century, it’s hard to say whether he proved DNA changes in response to environment.
Curly Girl says
Joe@30: LOL!!! Yes, you are right. Well, I did warn you that I was on my high horse. 🙂
And here is the correction and how it fits into my argument: 1) in mid-19th C. Darwin posited that all species of life change in response to their environment; 2) in mid-19th C. Mendel, using pea plants, showed that traits are inherited according to certain laws, which we now call “genetics”; 3) in the 20th c. modern geneticists have put the two together to show that a) certain genetic mutations benefit an organism and give it a better chance at survival, promoting natural selection, strongly supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution, and b) DNA can change in response to its environment, in some organisms in as short a time period as an hour (which is why viruses are so problematic–their DNA changes very rapidly).
So again–why would male DNA (male “wiring”) be stuck in some hunter-gatherer time warp when the rest of the world (for the most part) has moved on?
Cilla says
@ CG
You make some very good points. I’ve always thought that this theory about male hunter hardwiring is just an excuse for a lot of bad behavior in modern western society. What about certain indigenous societies in Africa and Asia, which could at least be termed “matrifocal” if not downright matriarchal? If men are hardwired since cave man days to be dominant, why are the men in these cultures subjugated by women?
Honey says
FWIW, PMS is mostly a myth that was created by the medical community to replace “hysteria,” which was removed from the DSM in 1952 (the same year the term PMS was phrased).
Are cramps, irritability and food cravings real? Yes. Do they generally interfere with your life because you’ve become an unthinking slave to their irrefutable sway? No. Women choose to eat buckets of chocolate, snap at their SOs, and then say, “I can’t help it, I have PMS.”
Honey´s last blog post…Get Fit and Improve Your Dating Prospects
Curly Girl says
Cilla@32: I know, it’s hysterical! The stuff that is supposedly “hardwired” into the male is always that everyday sexual stuff that is reprehensible to women–like ogling, cheating, sex without commitment, chasing tail, demanding obeisance, etc. You never hear that “hardwiring” argument in defense of other “traditional” male behaviors like paying the bills, taking out the trash, cleaning the gutters (stuff guys don’t want to do for the so-called “weaker” sex)–or, on a darker note–things like torture and rape and war (stuff guys do but that “good” guys don’t want to be associated with). No, it’s always this stupid, passive-aggressive b.s. It’s like someone wrote an article in Maxim or GQ and every guy who read it said, “Yeah–that’s what I’ll tell her. I just can’t help myself! It’s my WIRING!” And all those guys who read that article spread the word. Even though we see men going on hunger strike and denying their physical impulse to eat, we see men being tortured as prisoners of war and not revealing state secrets; we see men going through the intense pain of chemotherapy so that they can fight cancer; we have Ghandi who slept in the same bed as his 13-year-old niece to wrestle with his inappropriate sexual impulses–and STILL we have guys checking out the chippy on the street while on a date with YOU and pretending that it’s OK because “men are just WIRED that way.”
Toasters are wired. YOU are making a choice to engage in bad behavior.
Janet says
I’m not a fan of the “wiring” argument, as I’ve expressed before–mostly because it’s so vague. C.G., you posit that this expression refers to DNA, but there is so much beyond DNA that goes into human behavior. I’m not a credentialed behaviorist, but really, behaviorism is quite complex and takes into account so much more than genetics. (As I mentioned before, in the book “The Brain That Changes Itself,” the author explains that the sexual pleasure centers in the brain are very malleable and easily reprogrammed neurologically–or re-“wired,” so to speak.) So men’s comments about “wiring” could be speaking about social conditioning, or some kind of neurological mapping, or something besides DNA, though men don’t seem to use the expression that way. No one is really very articulate about it, actually.
I always think that when a guy is talking about his “wiring” as being the reason for certain behaviors/predelictions that what he is saying is that he is having a physical impulse that he has no control over or fears he has no control over. And yes, it usually seems to be an excuse for bad behavior, as Cilla points out. What men don’t realize is that women don’t want the excuse OR the behavior–and we don’t want to be cast as your jailers or your mothers, monitoring behavior that you claim you have no control over. So to many women that phrase becomes something of a showdown–it says, “You have to accept this thing that you don’t like, this thing that threatens you.” Followed by “every guy is this way–if you don’t like it, are threatened by it, there is something wrong with YOU.” Even though, clearly, not every man responds sexually in the same way, so part of this argument is defensive in intent (there’s safety in numbers, so to speak). Even men on this board who are very quick to accuse women of bias and generalizations and prejudice are very quick to speak on behalf of all men when it comes to sexual response. 🙂
But this question is about ways that men and women are alike. Here’s one: both men and women get aroused in equal measure by watching porn. I wish I had the study to link you to–but the upshot is that surface skin sensors attached to viewers of a porn movie show equal states of arousal. On leaving the screening, however, more women deny that arousal. Were they less aware of it than men (after all, girl boners are less obvious, shall we say) or were they afraid to admit their arousal? Neither interpretation is comforting.
What is comforting about this: men want women, and women want men–in bed, at least!
Hmm…now let me go get my guy… all this writing is setting off a sweet little longing in me…..
Curly Girl says
Honey, you are so right!!!
Lesson: We all need to take responsibility for our hormones!
Honey says
@ Steve – I did my dissertation partly on this topic, so I’m pretty confident in my opinion, as it’s pretty scientifically informed.
What your friends are suffering from is NOT PMS as it was originally conceived of, and promoted by, the medical community. Interestingly, while PMS is described with practically an infinity of symptoms, every medical description I have seen also states that PMS does not interfere with ordinary life. If it does, it’s not PMS. The “new” PMDD, perhaps.
.-= Honey´s last blog ..Good News Follows Good News: Or, LinkedIn Works!? =-.
Kristyn says
@ Curly Girl #33
I LOVE your closing thought! Made my day!
Steve says
@Honey, comment #34
I have to call BS on your opinion. You personally may not have a problem with PMS. I have at least 3 close friends who spend at least one weekend a month locked in their rooms, curled up on their beds waiting for it to go away.
Yes, they can cowboy up if they need to go out and do something, but it is no small effort.
Mikko Kemppe says
@ Honey, I would sincerely like to know more about how do you view hunter-gatherer societies based on the work you have done with the anthropologists.
I agree with many of the women here that I don’t think men should ever use the “hard-wiring” argument to justify bad behavior or mistakes made.
I think this is what makes it so hard to try to discuss our differences in a more positive light. We men have have a history of using our differences, whether it is racial, religious, or gender, to justify horrendous acts of violence or discrimination.
So no wonder when we try to talk about our differences we often come across as arrogant or total jerks. But I think it is important that we learn to explore our differences with the positive intention to try to learn to respect and understand our differences.
Brain scans, for example, clearly demonstrate that our brains are different. Under a similar emotionally stressful situation, 8 times more blood flow enters in to the limbic system in woman’s brain than man’s . Women have much more connective tissue between the different parts of the brain than men do. Women see more colors than men. Men have on average 30 times more testosterone in their blood than women. Under stress, when measured by cortisol levels, man’s cortisol levels drop (lowering man’s stress levels) when the production of testosterone is stimulated (these are behaviors like watching TV, lifting weights, playing basketball, sleeping, etc.). However, woman’s cortisol levels don’t drop when the production of testosterone is stimulated. Woman’s cortisol levels drop when the production of oxytocin is stimulated lowering woman’s stress levels (these are behaviors like holding a baby, hugging, talking with a good friend, etc.). So the argument, I think that many of us men are trying to make is that our biology and brains are different.
This does not mean that one sex is better than the other. But it does mean that if in our relationships and while dating we want to assist each other in producing the hormones and brain chemicals that are most beneficial for us as men and women, it is good to be aware of these differences.
hunter says
Mikko, I kneel and bow to you..
Mikko Kemppe says
Hahahaaa :). Thanks Hunter!
.-= Mikko Kemppe´s last blog ..I am smart, independent, successful, and educated, why aren’t men attracted to me? Read the answer here, and discover the solution. =-.
hunter says
I agree with the brain scan comment.
Don’t forget, men change after 50 years old, our testosterone level decreases, men are no longer as aggressive.
Mikko Kemppe says
Now that is very true also, especially in the western world due to our toxic lifestyle. However, in some parts of the world like in some the isolated tribes of Pakistan, China, and Ecuador, men’s testosterone levels have been shown to continue to be high well in their 80’s and 90’s.
.-= Mikko Kemppe´s last blog ..Mikko, How Do I Make Sure I Don’t Just End Up Dumped After Sexless Dates? =-.
hunter says
…ahhh, yes, lets not forget, statistics of isolated tribal males in other parts of the world…the women from this blog may want to go there some day….
Amy says
@ dadshouse:
Interesting you should mention attending a speed dating event in Silicon Valley. I’m going to my first one soon (in Silicon Valley) mainly out of curiosity. I’m hardly frumpy or dumpy, but no bombshell either. I realize there’s not much time to take in anything much besides looks and the potential for “chemistry”. I’m just now starting to process how badly the cards are stacked against me (woman, 40, divorced, no kids) since most men my age or slightly younger seem to be looking for late 20s or early-mid 30s women, and I must say, it doesn’t exactly encourage me to get “out there.”