The Great Mate Debate by Chemistry.com

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.