Dating Study: Women Are Choosier Than Men

Researchers Conclude Men Go For Good Looks When It Comes To Choosing A Mate

(AP)  Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks.

And guys won't be surprised to learn that women are much choosier about partners than they are.

"Just because people say they're looking for a particular set of characteristics in a mate, someone like themselves, doesn't mean that is what they'll end up choosing," Peter M. Todd, of the cognitive science program at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in a telephone interview.

Researchers led by Todd report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that their study found humans were similar to most other mammals, "following Darwin's principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different."

Their study involved 26 men and 20 women in Munich, Germany.

Participants ranged in age from 26 to their early 40s and took part in "speed dating," short meetings of three to seven minutes in which people chat, then move on to meet another dater. Afterward, participants check off the people they'd like to meet again, and dates can be arranged between pairs who select one another.

Speed dating let researchers look at a lot of mate choices in a short time, Todd said.

In the study, participants were asked before the session to fill out a questionnaire about what they were looking for in a mate, listing such categories as wealth and status, family commitment, physical appearance, healthiness and attractiveness.

After the session, the researchers compared what the participants said they were looking for with the people they actually chose to ask for another date.

Men's choices did not reflect their stated preferences, the researchers concluded. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the women's physical attractiveness.

The men also appeared to be much less choosy. Men tended to select nearly every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold, Todd said.

Women's actual choices, like men's, did not reflect their stated preferences, but they made more discriminating choices, the researchers found.

The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.

"Women made offers to men who had overall qualities that were on a par with the women's self-rated attractiveness. They didn't greatly overshoot their attractiveness," Todd said, "because part of the goal for women is to choose men who would stay with them"

But, he added, "they didn't go lower. They knew what they could get and aimed for that level."

So, it turns out, the women's attractiveness influenced the choices of the men and the women.

[sy2502]

This study assumes that Women are "on the prowl" for a man, any man that is that she thinks she can catch, read on, is worthy of her status line in beauty. This is so demeaning.
Posted by TrueProgress at 02:00 AM : Sep 06, 2007

Humans are the product of millions of years of evolution, and the most powerful evolutionary goal is to pass on your genes. That''s why we are programmed to seek a mate that will help us achieve that evolutionary goal. By scoffing on the very concept of looking for a mate you are making a fool of yourself. If you ever had a meaningful relationship, you would know there is nothing demeaning about it.

[eggy1620]

%u201CThis study assumes that Women are "on the prowl" for a man%u201D Did you read the actual published study%u2019s list of assumptions, or are you just pontificating based on the above journalist%u2019s condensed newsbite version? I state from the study authors%u2019 conslusions that this confirms basic nature. Not just human nature, but all vertebrates. This study implies that we are much like the peacock flaunting his plume, the stag showing off his giant rack, the vibrant clownfish maximizing his refelctions of the sun%u2019s rays in the hopes of attracting the female%u2019s attention. Females of all species, and women in particular, have had to develop an innate level of discerning taste towards the all options contiuously being presented to them from MALES who are %u201Con the prowl%u201D. To claim that women should be above what nature has hardwired into their brains for the sake of some artificial, enlightened goals, based solely upon their gender, is rather offensive.

[trueprogress]

As I tell my class, there are no stupid question, most times. This study assumes that Women are "on the prowl" for a man, any man that is that she thinks she can catch, read on, is worthy of her status line in beauty. This is so demeaning. Women I know, here, and around the country, agree with me. As a world Citizen, I speak out for all women. Is there another question ?

[eggy1620]

Trueprogress: Just how is the study anti woman? The conclusion states that women generally put more thought into the relationship dynamic than men. I would call that a compliment towards women.

[kwameb-2009]

"Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks. "

20 german couples "speed-dating" and the lead sentence is about Science and "mates"?

Please, you''ve got one minute in front of some chick, what else are you going to be attracted to?

[rational_1]

Being a good person INSIDE, is much more important than what people see on the outside. Most of the beautiful people you see on TV, dont look all that great in real life, they look just like everyone else.
Posted by OldThought at 11:14 AM : Sep 04, 2007

The Canadian rock group The Northern Pikes (ya, I know you''ve never heard of them) had a minor hit a few decades back called "She ain''t pretty, she just looks that way". I''ve seen some phenomenally ugly "beautiful people".

[Netterz]

Gawd, they should have spent the $ for this study on cancer, homeless people, rabid dogs, anything of worth. I will add my 2 cents anyways since I see mostly posts of men here. I have a lot of male friends and to me there fantastic friends, but not mate material. Why? They dont take good care of themselves, and think that all women should look like a Barbie. The only ones who have any idea of what to look for in a mate, are married to beautiful women, inside and out. All I can say, is most men read too much playboy, and watch too much TV. Real women arent air-brushed and photo-shopped into perfection. Stereo-typing leaves many men alone. Especially as they age. No woman is going to jump from the page of a mag, or out of the TV for you, and kneel at your feet, beg for your hand in marriage, and plead to be the mother of your children. This goes for a few women I know as well. There is an old saying that holds true, find someone you love to talk to, because all things fade with age. You can only spend so much time in the bedroom, and there are many more hours in the day that you have to like this person. Looking in the mirror a couple times a day is important, but looking into your soul needs to be done ALL the time. Being a good person INSIDE, is much more important than what people see on the outside. Most of the beautiful people you see on TV, dont look all that great in real life, they look just like everyone else.

[gmond]

Isn''t there another non-study like this every few years with exactly the same conclusions each time? Why do these studies keep getting funded? Can''t these brainiacs actually do some real research to earn their keep?

[ianlou]

Men may marry base on looks alone the first time, If they aren%u2019t total idiots, they''ll look a little deeper the second time. (if they''re dumb enough to try a second time)

[kaiyo4u]

Posted by goodsamarata at 09:20 PM : Sep 03, 2007

I keep getting emails from Chemistry.com telling me they have too many women and need more men on their site. ROTFLMAO!
I agree with you on the superman thing, but aren''t we looking for superwoman?
Actually I''m not, I''m looking for that "click". It''s something you don''t get on these dating sites. And I''m looking outside the US for a wife. I''m tired of the games that get played by them.

Posted by USAyesterday at 05:49 AM : Sep 04, 2007
Good post! lmao!

Posted by kestrel9000 at 06:31 AM : Sep 04, 2007
Right on!

[evolved_mind]

Here''s a quick lesson for guys: Chicks are more interested in the bulge in your back pocket and not the one in front: Reason: Who is best to help her progeny.

William in Colorado

[reporter21]

Give Me A Break, Looking For Love In The Wrong Places check this out at: www.poconocommunitynews.com

[kestrel9000]

If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall.
As soon as he marries her
Then she starts to do
The things that will break his heart.
But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You''ll be happy for the rest of your life,
An ugly woman cooks her meals on time,
She''ll always give you peace of mind.

Don''t let your friends say
You have no taste,
Go ahead and marry anyway,
Though her face is ugly,
Her eyes don''t match,
Take it from me she''s a better catch.

-Jimmy Soul

[usayesterday]

Here''s how the "choosy" scale goes based on the size of clothing the woman has to wear:

Wearing size 0 - 3:
Very choosy (and knows it)

Wearing size 4 - 7:
Somewhat choosy (but is willing to overlook some things)

Wearing size 8 - 12:
Minimally choosy (but wishes they could find better)

Wearing size 13 and above:
As the saying goes: "Beggars can''t be choosers!"

[Krazcarl]

This is not news agree with armandbeni it''s amazing what hog wash studies are based on just ask 5 of your friends no need to study. The amazing thing is that people got paid for this nothing more than high class unemployment.

[andrew_693]

In another study, Republican party members were found to have more interest in homosexual activities rather than the opposite ***. They were also found to be fond of talking about being a man at the same time they hid under dad''s desk (Bush) or asked for deferments (Cheney) while crapping their pants in order to avoid serving their country (Ted nuggent). This study started in the Vietnam war and still goes on with the same results.

[incog-nito]

You need a study for THIS???

[mrrjenkins]

This study involved 46 Germans and it''s considered news? What a joke. It just goes to show how the standards for news have declined over the years. This study was not even close to scientific.

Everyone should remember a simple factor. For the 186,000 years that **** sapien sapiens (thats humans) have lived on this planet at least 7 out of 10 lived in rural areas (as in living off the land). You had better ask some farm boys and girls to take that survey. Us city folks havent had long enough to adapt to the historic realities that out species had to overcome to produce us. 1)We are the decendants of conquerors. 2) Disease and famine are the great historic culls of our populations, not nuclear war. Simply put, our choices of mates are mostly instinctual, not environmental!

[latazman]

I''ve been in Social Services for over 10 years and this article seems a bit skewed. If women are so much choosier, how you account for the huge amount of single moms where that dad is no longer present (jail or gone) or of so little use finacially that 1) mom and child lives off of social services, 2)grandparents are raising the crew or 3)the gall is busting her butt just to get by? Answer - Chooier but not always right!