Topic:   Which sex is more romantic – men or women?

The psychological data report that men are more romantic than women are. They fall in love faster, because they are so visual. Men are more dependent on their girlfriends or wives because they have fewer close friends and fewer ties to family. More men remarry. And more men kill themselves when a relationship ends. Men even alter their daily schedule more regularly, waiting for a woman to call or write. And new data indicate that men are also more eager to marry and happier in their marriages. Scientists believe that women are somewhat more cautious about entering a relationship, and sustaining it, for a good Darwinian (unconscious) reason: it is the woman who will bear the fetus for nine months, and do the vast majority of daily childcare during the child’s infancy. Feminine caution is adaptive.

But women seem to express romantic feelings more regularly than men. Women, on average, are more emotionally expressive. They buy and send more greeting cards. They arrange the social schedule, including birthday parties and anniversary events. Women are better at remembering the history of the relationship, so they are good at reminiscing. And our data on the brain chemistry of romantic love suggest that women feel ever so slightly more of the intense exhilaration when they fall in love.

So which sex is more romantic? Both. The sexes just express it differently. But we are built to continually chase one another--as Keats brilliantly summed it up in his Ode on a Grecian Urn, saying, “What mad pursuit.”

I was once told by a man that one of men’s deepest held secrets is that they don’t always want to have sex. Women keep secrets too. And one of our secrets is that we don’t really like very muscled men. Dr. Martie Haselton, a fine evolutionary psychologist at UCLA and graduate student in psychology David Frederick have proven this scientifically. In a series of experiments, they have established that women are attracted to muscle building men for short liaisons and affairs. But for a long term relationship, they seek more average looking guys.

Most interesting is women’s reasoning. Women report that very muscled men tend to be domineering, volatile and philandering. And for a long term relationship, they prefer men who are more faithful and romantic.

Why is this so interesting? Because these women are accurately (yet unconsciously) reading biology. Muscle builders trigger the production of testosterone to develop their muscles. And elevated testosterone is associated with being domineering, volatile, and unfaithful. In short, as women look at these muscles they are intuitively linking them with specific biological mechanisms that produce specific psychological traits.

My point is this: looks count. They say subtle things about your biology--and your personality. And people naturally pick up on these cues. So this summer, when everyone is out parading, don’t think you are shallow as you ogle potential mates. Listen to your heart. You are often much smarter than you think you are.

The Psychiatric University Clinics in Basel, Switzerland did a study in which scientists asked 113 teenagers (around the age of 17) to keep a diary of their sleep patterns; they were studying mood and behavior. Apparently 65 of these teens were “in love.” And the love struck men and women displayed signs of “hypomania,” a less intense form of mania. These men and women slept an hour less each night; they impulsively spend too much money; and they were twice as likely to report that they were filled with energy and creative ideas. Last, they took more risk, particularly while driving. The scientists concluded that being in love is a “psychopathologically prominent stage.”

What is “pathological” about being in love? Journalists and apparently scientists seem to want to make this natural human euphoria, associated with true bliss, intense energy and heightened creativity, into a disease. Romantic love is an extremely powerful brain system, indeed when it hits, it is an obsession. And we all know that love can be dangerous, psychologically and physically. But a disease? Well, if romantic love is a disease, just about all the world wants to contract this fever and live with it forever.

Topic:  Study about women in relationships

A new study reports that wives have more power than their husbands in the home. They make more of the decisions and they dominate discussions.

What’s new here? Women have always had a lot of informal power in the home. Unquestionably, women historically did lack the economic power to weigh in on important financial decisions. But today, in at least 1 of 4 households where both spouses work, the wife brings home more money than her husband. And everywhere in the world where women are economically powerful they are socially powerful as well. No wonder women have increasing power in the home.

The study also shows that wives are more demanding; they more regularly ask for changes in the relationship. This isn’t new either. Many studies show that men are, on average, happier in their marriages. Because men have fewer close friends, they are also more dependent on their spouses. So no wonder men make fewer demands.

Last, the study reports that wives are more likely to “get their way,” regardless of the issue. Once again, I’m not surprised. Men tend to avoid arguments because men become more “flooded” by their feelings--along with an unhealthy rise in blood pressure. So it is thought that men avoid disagreeable conversations (stonewalling) to unconsciously preserve their health.

This new report is actually just another sign that we are returning to life as it was a million years ago--when women commuted to work to do their gathering, the double income family was the rule and women were just as economically, socially and sexually powerful as men. We are moving forward to the past, toward equality between the sexes.

As usual, this depends. I think people are missing out if they never experience an enduring, long-term, live-in relationship based on trust, romance, friendship, adventure, compatible sexual needs and enduring intellectual interests. But who am I to say that people always get these things in a marriage, or that those who have a long-term live-in commitment to one another fail to achieve this companionship and joy? I do think that marriage has several perks, however. Foremost, the obvious. It takes time and money to get out of a marriage, so I think marriage requires you to grow up and work to overcome your differences instead of fleeing. Marriage can deepen a relationship, as well as widen family and community ties and bring security and peace.

But some believe that marriage will destroy that spark of romance that a less formal connection might preserve. Others regard marriage as a piece of paper, not quite worthy of the deep enduring love they express to one another regularly. So I’ll go with the “if by whiskey” story, told by former southern politicians: Apparently a reporter once asked one of these savvy gentleman how he stood on the issue of “whiskey.” The politician paused for a moment, then said: “If by ‘whiskey’ you mean that magnificent potion that lubricates social intercourse and warms the heart, then I’m for it …. But if by ‘whiskey’ you mean that satanic concoction that wrecks families and sends people down to hell, then I’m against it.” So “if by marriage you mean…," I am for it.

In fact, I’ll go with Margaret Mead who, when asked why all three of her marriages failed, retorted, “I beg your pardon, I have had three marriages and none of them was a failure.” We each define marriage and enjoyed it in our own private ways. I’m just glad we live in an era where we can build our marriages as we wish. Big Brother isn’t watching. Which reminds me of one of Mead’s ideas. She suggested that we consider a new marital option: a renewable marriage contract much like a driver’s license with an expiration date and option to renew. I don’t think this is a viable option for those who plan to have children (Mead didn’t either). But those who marry later in life or know they don’t wish to reproduce may find a renewable marriage contract attractive. And it’s not such a bad idea. Under these circumstances, some might be inclined to be on their best behavior more regularly, particularly around “renewal” time. Others might be more polite as they wait for their opportunity to depart. Perhaps some day “til death do us part” will be joined by some variation of the slogan “six years or bust.” I don’t find this very romantic, personally. But perhaps it would give some people the right mix of autonomy and commitment they need to enjoy life's greatest adventure: love.

Great chemistry; bad sex: Should you give up? I don’t know. Each situation is different. But I do know this: If you are intensely in love with some one, you will certainly notice their clumsiness in the sack--but you might not care. When people are madly in love they can list what they don’t like about their sweetheart, but then they sweep these concerns aside and focus on what they adore. As Chaucer said, “Love is blynd.” But what if you believe this person really could be a soul mate--but sex is nowhere near what it could be or should be? Should you give up? I am an anthropologist, not a therapist, but as a concerned layman, I would say: If you think the situation is hopeless, and you know you need a vastly different kind of sex life to make a long-term, happy relationship, you should cut your losses (and your partner’s losses) and politely depart. But people learn. And change. And grow. I honestly know several men and women who have slowly, tactfully and patiently shown their partners new bedroom skills and built a fabulous sex life together—out of almost nothing. So if you think you have found “The One,” don’t give up. If he or she really loves you, they will want to please. And if you stick with it, you both can win.

Why are so many celebrity couples having kids out of wedlock? Because they are rich and famous. And although this sounds glib, bearing babies out of wedlock can be an adaptive Darwinian strategy—particularly if you are rich and famous.

“Marriage,” Voltaire wrote, “is the only true adventure open to the cowardly.” It is an adventure. And swearing lifelong fidelity to (and responsibility for) another human being during a wedding ceremony has psychic pressures that “living together” simply cannot match. Moreover, it is much easier and cheaper to wiggle out of a bad love affair than a bad marriage, even when children are involved.

So if you can afford to raise your babies without taking on the psychological accountability and financial risks of marriage (and you can weather the social criticism), you would be advised by Mother Nature to buck tradition and bear your babies out of wedlock. Celebrities are not the only ones to adopt this strategy, however. In 1960 one in 20 children were born out of wedlock; today it is one in three. Moreover, today 40% of these births are planned, and many of these children are born to women over age 25.

Darwinian logic isn’t solely for the rich and famous. (By the way, many of these women will eventually marry.) But regarding celebrities: More interesting to me is why they say they have not wed. One Hollywood couple recently announced that they would wed “the day that all Americans had the right to wed.” This is to be respected, to be sure.

But from the Darwinian perspective, this couple is also collecting social capital, in the form of admiration, as they reap their reproductive gains. I don’t mean to be cynical about our human conduct. Poor people, middle-class people; we all engage in unconscious reproductive tactics to survive and reproduce. It’s natural to “think of the children.” The rich and famous are simply playing out a well-designed (albeit unconscious) strategy to win the mating game.

I think more and more people are actually putting energies into making their marriages work. Moreover, this is a fairly modern trend. Greek, Roman, Chinese and early Christian philosophers and theologians regarded one’s love of kin, God and civil duty as far more important than love for a spouse. In fact, historians maintain that strong marital commitments were not regarded as the foundation stone of society until the 20th century. We’re doing something right!

This new emphasis on happiness and companionship in marriage probably stems from many current trends. But one of them, I suspect, is our lack of local community. We all still maintain rich networks of colleagues, friends and family. But these people don’t live next door; nor do they share all of our personal values and goals, as they did for millions of years on the grasslands of ancient Africa. I have often thought humanity would reinvent new ways to produce local community-- and perhaps the church life that some people are creating is a response to exactly this need for local community.

I also realize that we all have biases. Sometimes I lie in bed at night and wonder what beliefs I am clinging to that I will think are ridiculous in five years. I only know of one at the moment: I firmly believe that women are just as sexual and just as adulterous as men. But this is a topic for a different blog.

To be able to say “spiritual commitment is absolutely essential” to a relationship, I guess we would have to define “spiritual.” But to add some science here: Psychologists believe a successful relationship needs three components: passion; intimacy and commitment. But…does a successful partnership need a “spiritual” commitment, particularly to a Christian god?

Well, as an anthropologist I can only say that a huge number of human beings worldwide--for many millennia--made highly successful marriages without a Christian god. Moreover, even a cursory look at global history indicates that the concept of ‘god’ has caused tremendous damage—perhaps not in the family but certainly in the world.

There are a lot of different kinds of long distance relationships and a lot of ways to make these work. I know a truck driver who actually hooked up a TV camera in his wife’s bedroom so that he could watch her sleep--not to spy on her but to remain close to her. I also know a couple in the Navy who regularly rent the same video and watch it together on the phone, in “real time,” while he is on duty in Asia and she is in their home in New Jersey. Cell phones, email, Internet photos and home videos can enable the traveler to stay in daily, even hourly, contact with a beloved. Couples also tend to develop a few good rules. For example, I recently spoke with an Army wife who told her husband that he must never whistle while he packs for a 6-month tour of duty. All these touches can make a long distance partnership bearable, perhaps even fun—as long as both partners participate in holding things together.

I would add that in hunting and gathering societies, men and women often leave camp for days or weeks, to visit relatives or meet other social or business obligations. And often both partners like their “free time.” Even today, some couples truly enjoy these interruptions. They say they get more of their work done during these intervals and have more time to enjoy the partnership when they reunite. But it all depends, of course, on who you are, what you want, and what makes your partnership thrive.

Q: I am new to online dating and I just began creating my Chemistry.com profile this weekend. I am concerned that my profile may not reflect me. Can you give me pointers as to what I should put in it?

Hi. Welcome to Chemistry.com. You have probably already thought of the obvious things: Be upbeat and positive--people are drawn to those with energy and enthusiasm.

Don't be shy, put some of your best qualities up front, people are attracted to those who are confident. Be honest--you want people to trust you. Be careful with your grammar and spelling--you don't want to look illiterate or lazy. And be reasonable--don't say you want the moon, because no one can give it to you.

So, on to the details.

Foremost, I would try to be original. Skip the clichés like “I like to sip wine by the fire.” And the broad statements like “I am an athletic, caring blond.” Instead say something colorful and descriptive like: “I have blond hair to my waist; I like to do somersaults in the surf; I teach Mongolian immigrants to speak English; and I play a mean game of backgammon.” Vivid; vivid; vivid. Show your sweet side. Be brief. Be funny if you can, but this can be hard to pull off in writing. And if you can use a quote from a song, or movie, or book, or poem that is clever, touching or revealing -- go for it. Use active verbs and skip the adjectives. And then show your profile to a friend and ask him or her if you have described yourself accurately. Even better, ask your friend to write a profile for you, then compare the two versions--and add what you have missed about yourself.

Very good luck to you,
Helen

Dr. Fisher,
Why are so many people more commitment phobic now than in generations past?

Hi Reader,
Most important, some 90% of American men and women marry by age 45; we are just marrying later. But there are many reasons why men and women are not eager to commit. Foremost, these days it takes a long time to get through school and start a career. And a lot of people want to build this foundation before they settle down. Today many live in large urban areas, too; they feel they have a large selection of partners to choose from; so they are picky. Still others hear about the high divorce rate and become overly cautious. And many plan to live some 90 years, so they want to "try out" a partnership before they wed long term. In past generations, men and women married young for economic, social and political reasons, as well as to get sex and love. Today we can get sex and love without wedding; and we don't have to marry to build these ties with neighbors. So we have turned inward, searching for a soul mate--a deep, personal, trusting and exciting connection with "the one." This can take time to find.

Nevertheless, most of us will marry when we feel the time is right. Love wins; love just about always wins.

Topic: Gay Marriage: Will it exist across America in the next decade?

Gay marriage: Will it exist across America in the next decade? No, it will not. The United States is way behind other Western societies in our acceptance of the gay lifestyle—for historical, evolutionary and illogical reasons.

I study the human brain. And I have come to believe (and prove) that humanity has evolved three distinctly different brain systems for mating and reproduction: the sex drive; intense romantic love; and deep feelings of attachment to a long term partner. And when I gave a questionnaire on romantic love to 437 Americans and 402 Japanese of all ages, I found that my homosexual participants expressed just as much romantic passion as did my heterosexuals. Gays and lesbians, I am convinced, have inherited exactly the same brain networks for the sex drive, romantic love and deep attachment to a partner as the rest of us. So I am not surprised that some want to marry.

Why are Americans so deeply opposed to gay marriage? For several reasons. Foremost, centuries ago the Christian church declared marriage a sacrament. The institution of marriage evolved millennia before Christianity; but early Christian fathers hijacked this ancient human custom. And today many Christians regard marriage as their property--to be distributed only among believers of their god. These Christians are not likely to dispense with this belief in the next ten years. But Christians get very hot under the collar on this issue. There must be something even deeper to their convictions. I think there is: fear.

So, to take Darwinian perspective: Marriage evolved as the primary mechanism by which men and women spread their seed into tomorrow. And it appear to me that many of these Christians feel threatened that their institution for reproduction will be diminished even threatened if they permit non-reproducing individuals to marry too.

Reproduction is our ticket to eternity. And those who unconscious feel that Christian marriage is central to their biological self preservation are likely to fight until the last flicker of their illogic wanes. It’s a pity that, on this issue, many Christians can’t behave more like Christians and love their neighbors as they do themselves.

Topic: Is there still a double-standard for women? Will a man not respect a woman who has sex very early on in a relationship?

The men and women I know, and have known, don’t share their sexual habits and strategies. So although it is tempting to wax eloquent about “respect” and how men generally feel about women, I don’t actually know a lot about the general population; moreover, I have seen no hard data on this topic. So I can only respond from my personal experience. Foremost, I’m a baby boomer. And I have always conjectured that this stigma vanished some time in the mid 1960s, with the burning of bras, the rise of the women’s movement and the introduction of party drugs into the middle class. Traditions and beliefs die slowly, however, and it is easy to assume that some men have a lingering disrespect for some women who bed them soon after meeting. But I suspect the reverse is also true. Sex is not difficult to get. A romantic connection, with intellectual conversation, humor, excitement, intimacy and commitment is far more precious. So among my pals, most aren’t eager to embrace the complications and responsibilities of a sexual relationship before they know they can, ahem, tolerate, even love this potential mate. They don’t have the time, interest or energy to “sleep around.” It’s passé. But thinking on this personally for a moment. I am single. And I must admit that when a man comes on too fast, too strong, I actually do feel less respect for him.

Topic: Interracial dating – has it gotten any easier in recent years?

Interracial dating (and marrying) has increased dramatically in the past few decades. But is it easier? Like most Americans, I have very limited experience in the day-to-day issues of dating someone of a different race. I have almost exclusively dated men of my background -simply because these are the men I have met and these are the men who have been attracted to me.

But many years ago, I did have a few months of dating someone of a different race. And I came away from the experience with only one insight: Within a couple weeks I entirely forgot that we were of different racial stock. I had become thoroughly absorbed in his ideas, his sense of humor, his mannerisms, his mind. Only when we walked in the street--and people stared at us--did I suddenly realize that we came from different ethnic groups.

I am a biological anthropologist. I study human evolution specifically how and why we humans are all alike. And I still recall those stares with astonishment. Why is it that people focus on the slightest physical differences between human beings when we are so overwhelmingly all alike?

Topic: Inter-faith dating – when does it work? When doesn’t it?

Flexibility is, I think, the ticket to inter-faith dating. If you can’t drum up any compassion for your partner's point of view, you just have to go with flexibility. As religious beliefs are not rational, but based on faith, it will be hopeless to reason with him or her. People just believe what they believe... and that's that. So I think the real key is the great art of keeping your mouth shut—about their views, and about your views. And when it comes time to honor their traditions, such as during Ramadan or at Christmas, just go with the flow. Every religion has its virtues and you should be able to find something about their beliefs that you can respect and embrace. I have found a great deal to admire in just about all religions. It’s too bad more people don’t practice what they preach.