Romantic Revulsion in the New Century: Flaw-O-Matic 2.0 (Perfectionism Kills Romance)

New York Times ^ | 10 April 2007 | John Tierney

[shrinkermd]

ABSTRACT: In this meta-analysis of online dating and speed dating, we propose a corollary to the Flaw-O-Matic theory of romantic revulsion. Current research reveals that the Flaw-O-Matic, a mechanism in the brain that instantly finds fault with any potential mate, can be reoriented positively in certain conditions through a newly identified process, the Sally Field Effect.

...Just as Darwin could have predicted, the researchers have found that women are pickier than men. While men concentrate mainly on looks and will ask out a lot of women as long as they’re above a certain threshold of attractiveness, women focus on fewer prospects.

They’re less willing to date someone of another race. When using online services, they pay more attention than men do to a potential partner’s education, profession and income. They prefer taller men, but they’re willing to relax their standards for the Ron Perelmans of the world, as revealed in a study of more than 20,000 online daters by Gunter Hitsch and Ali Hortacsu of the University of Chicago and Dan Ariely of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

They found that a 5-foot-8 man was just as successful in getting dates as a 6-footer if he made more money — precisely $146,000 a year more. For a 5-foot-2 man, the number was $277,000. [For more of these trade-offs, see nytimes.com/tierneylab.]

...Being able to make this distinction in a four-minute speed date, the researchers write in the April issue of Psychological Science, “suggests that humans possess an impressive, highly attuned ability to assess such subtleties of romantic attraction. In fact, the need to feel special or unique could be a broad motivation that stretches across people’s social lives.”

[MayflowerMadam]

Women who indicate they’re concerned about money most likely are actually concerned about being provided for. It’s inherent for women to seek out that security and it’s Biblical. Most men ignore it because it’s inconvenient for them to acknowledge their responsibilities. (REAL men understood this before the feminism movement.)

I Timothy 5:8 - “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (”Infidel” = “unbeliever”, and is written that way in other translations.) If unbelievers won’t spend eternity in Heaven, then people who are WORSE than unbelievers have a pretty tragic eternal future.

(That pesky Bible thing can be so disruptive at times.)

Interesting that some men who criticize women’s lib the loudest are the first to malign women who are honest that financial security and being provided for are important. These men need to pick one principle, and then stick with it. Can’t have it both ways.

[Mr. Jeeves]

“Yet I see a lot of white woman/black man couples,..”

I can’t think of many things that turn me off more.

From Herb Caen's column a couple of decades ago: Two gay men were standing in line at the theater. A black man/white woman couple walked by, and one of the gays turned to the other and said, "I never could get used to that." ;)