Dating Study: Women Are Choosier Than Men

(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!