An article from our friends in Australia.
...modern-day singles, like generations of their ancestors, are driven by biology with men seeking the best specimens to procreate with, and women seeking the best long-term partners.
As a recent student of evolutionary psychology, I find this kind of study fascinating. It's also a bit disturbing.
Despite my attempt to be an enlightened 3rd-wave feminist, do I still operate this way? I hope not completely.
Do I appear sexist for acknowledging this type of research? I hope not.
This bit I found particularly interesting.
While the men opted on average to see every second woman, the women expressed an interest in seeing only a third of the men again, and they appeared to calibrate their choices based on how attractive they thought they were and who they could realistically expect to bag.
So basically, men were thinking "I have nothing to lose by going to bat," where women were thinking "If I go for someone out of my league, I might be setting myself up for a fling and not a long-term relationship."
Yeah, a bit disturbing.
On the flip side, this reminds me of a New York Times article from 2006: Facing Middle Age With No Degree, and No Wife. (Registration is probably required.)
...many men without college degrees are not marrying because the pool of women in their social circles — those without college degrees — has shrunk. And the dwindling pool of women in this category often look for a mate with more education and hence better financial prospects.
So women should hit the gym and men should hit the books? Ugh. Makes the feminist in me shudder.