Posted on 12/21/2004 3:59:39 PM PST by beavus
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Men are more likely to want to marry women who are their assistants at work rather than their colleagues or bosses, a University of Michigan study finds.
The study, published in the current issue of Evolution and Human Behavior, highlights the importance of relational dominance in mate selection and discusses the evolutionary utility of male concerns about mating with dominant females.
"These findings provide empirical support for the widespread belief that powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women," said Stephanie Brown, lead author of the study and a social psychologist at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR).
For the study, supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brown and co-author Brian Lewis from UCLA tested 120 male and 208 female undergraduates by asking them to rate their attraction and desire to affiliate with a man and a woman they were said to know from work.
"Imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer (or John) is your immediate supervisor (or your peer, or your assistant)," study participants were told as they were shown a photo of a male or a female.
After seeing the photo and hearing the description of the person's role at work in relation to their own, participants were asked to use a 9-point Likert scale (1 is not at all, 9 is very much) to rate the extent to which they would enjoy going to a party with Jennifer or John, exercising with the person, dating the person and marrying the person.
Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating.
"Our results demonstrate that male preference for subordinate women increases as the investment in the relationship increases," Brown said. "This pattern is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners.
"Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high, a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only long-term, investing relationships---not one-night stands."
According to Brown, who is affiliated with the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, the current findings are consistent with earlier research showing that expressions of vulnerability enhance female attractiveness. "Our results also provide further explanation for why males might attend to dominance-linked characteristics of women such as relative age or income, and why adult males typically prefer partners who are younger and make less money."
For more information on the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, visit: http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/ehap/
Love it! Great response..Enjoy, Brother!
Semper Fi
Thank you so much. And she is still abusive even in divorce :(
the sex is better.
LOL! Barf!
You've merely proven my point with a post that Mother Teresa-Miss Helmsley-Miss Coulter-Miss Sally Jesse Rafael could all be proud of.
Ought to be a hoot the day you slip and call your husband an "idiot" for not listening to your Mark 10:11-12 admonition.
I'm quite certain it's the other way around.
Successful men are driven to succeed precisely because success brings more and better romantic opportunities. Depending on their morals, that may either mean more chances to "score", or, better matrimonial opportunities, than they could have otherwise attracted.
In either case, the libido of successful men is ANYTHING BUT sublimated.
I am not saying that successful men have low sex drive, I['m saying that they use that energy in creative ways in order to succeed. Also, women with high sex drives are not
necessarily overbearing. My reference to "it takes two strong legs to support a torso (marriage)" in another post on this thread refutes the mistaken theory that submissive women must be wimpy ladies.
To the contrary, let us hope both partners in a marriage are both healthy, honest and mature.
And I'm saying that sexual energy in males is not subject to sublimation. The sex drive certainly is motivator for success, to be sure, but sexual energy can only be used for one thing (or, just plain resisted). It's not transferrable, alas. To put it anothter way, my intellectual creativity (I'm a product development scientist) is not at all derived from my sexuality -- they're just 2 unrelated things..
Also, women with high sex drives are not necessarily overbearing.
I said the opposite. Overbearing women don't strike me as very (hetero)sexual beings at all.
My reference to "it takes two strong legs to support a torso (marriage)" in another post on this thread refutes the mistaken theory that submissive women must be wimpy ladies. To the contrary, let us hope both partners in a marriage are both healthy, honest and mature.
Agree with you 100% there. My wife is strong and certainly not overbearing. Yet she exhibits Godly submission in all areas where that counts.
Care to comment?
RW, I really don't think we are disagreeing. But there is a misunderstanding in that I am saying that without a good sex drive, I doubt the male, or the female, for that matter, would have the motivation to be successful.
For both genders, by being creative in achieving that success, I believe that force is in itself the sex drive.
Perhaps "sublimate" is confusing the issue.
You mentioned motivation. Motivation has little to do with it, in my book, although there certainly can be motivation, ie: to provide for one's family, or it can be to shore up one's ego; and again a keen-ness for competition, etc., etc..
>To put it another way, women want to "marry up", whereas men just don't care<
Oh, I hadn't seen this post before, RW. And there I do disagree with you. A "smart" woman wants a "smarter" man, for sure, and few of us consider class when we fall in love. But men do, indeed, care. Witness John F. sKerry for only one. I maintain that men marry for money just as often as women do. But who needs those kind of people anyway?
signed,
An incurable romantic.
We had snow again this eve.
corretto
LOL!
you: But men do, indeed, care. Witness John F. sKerry for only one
John Kerry's status as a senator probably compensates for his lesser economic level. If he were NEITHER rich NOR a political figure it's doubtful that Teresa would have been interested.
More seriously -- there seems to be something almost hardwired in women to try to marry "up"; it almost seems as if they are INCAPABLE of being attracted to a guy they perceive as being "below" them, no matter how upright, handsome, or compatible he may be. Whereas men might care to some degree about a woman's social level but it is not anywhere near the "make or break" issue that it often is for women.
As a male, I find this to be totally untrue. There is just no connection between my sex drive and my creativity (not to brag but I have a lot of both). They are wholly, entirely unrelated. I only WISH I could harness my sexuality for creative purposes but it just doesn't work that way -- it's only good for one thing.
Maybe it's different for women.
>there seems to be something hardwired in women to try to marry "up"<
Well, of course there is. A woman wants to look "up" to her man. She has her innate scoreboard if she can find someone to meet it, she is a goner. But this usually has nothing to do with extraordinary wealth. It has more to do with good character. The good qualities must outweigh the faults if she is to continue "looking up" to her man.
(Unfortunately, young love is blind until it is too late.
Even for the mature a long engagement is advised).
As for a strong sex drive = creativity and success, I respect your unwillingness to accept the concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
As a real estate broker, in salespeople I looked for a good drive, perception, self motivation and a family to support. I was seldom disappointed.
The arts are powered by the sex drive. Poetry and painting
are the expression of either a thwarted one, or a requitted one, but dynamically more the thwarted one.
We are all sexual beings, and creativity and creative thinking, expresses how we relate to the world, literally and mystically. You are a scientist, perhaps wanting everything cut and dried. But things are seldom cut and dried, my friend. Oh dear, we could go on and on. Let's just agree to disagree, my friend.
My statements were nothing more than a speculative response to a theory posited by Hodar. No more, no less. Nothing personal. My Man, you are COLD. comment was personal in that it was my personal opinion following reasoned observation of your replies on this thread. You didn't answer my question that followed my opinionated statement, and that was Where is the LOVE in any of your comments about relationships and marriage?
Your insinuation by putting 'business world' in quotes is ambiguous to me. Would you care to elaborate on this?
My achievements have been in the 'television broadcasting world' and the 'improv comedy world' so that's why I chose to put quotes around the term 'business world'. I was distinguishing my own experience from the usual and everyday concept of a 'business woman' so as to be UNambiguous. It was probably just something that sprang from my own thoughts and the quotation marks were perhaps not necessary. Kind of a habit I have because I have trouble thinking of all the fun I've had working in a creative environment as 'business'. :-)
In regards to “No wimpy 'nice guys' need 'apply', however”, most certainly this is your preference, although you may be hastily associating nice guys with wimps.
Yes, it is my preference as well as -- once again -- my personal experience -- which I do not care to elaborate upon on this forum. I have reason to believe that wimpy and nice guy are interchangeable terms, but that is my own admittedly biased view.
The question is, I suppose, can a woman be an executive or manager in the (here we go again) 'business world' and also be a 'subordinate' to her husband? I said earlier in my reply to F16: It takes a sometimes precarious balance to make a relationship or marriage work; It shouldn't have to be a battle of supremacy. Compromise of inherently different natures and a desire to bring out the best in one another is usually effective regardless of the social standing of either person. I believe that wholeheartedly and if compromise means subordinating one's own stubborn nature to a man who deserves a woman's love and respect, by all means, do it. I will. I'd much rather be a strong woman Laura Bush than a strong woman Hillary Clinton.
Does that clarify things for you?
TERRIFIC rebuttal. I'm getting your slippers for your cold little tootsies right now, Lovebug.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.