My brother Fred’s alcoholic ex abandoned him and his sons three years ago.  Now, he’d like to find The One, but obviously he won’t look in bars, and he lacks time to sort through endless profiles.  I’d love to see him and the kids happy and settled with a good woman in their lives, so I suggested letting me screen women’s profiles online, and then babysitting while he meets the best of the best in person. 

He likes my nutty idea, but I have doubts.  Is screening possible mates something only he can do?  What will the “candidates” think about that?  And what’s the best Internet dating site to use? 

Betsy

Dear Betsy,

When Minnesotans Dave and Elizabeth Weinlick wed, their marriage was normal, except for one teeny thing:  Dave had his *friends* choose the bride —reasoning that they would be better judges of his wants and needs than he himself—and he and Elizabeth spoke for all of five minutes pre-Vows.  And although they were roundly decried as crazy, as of their 10^th anniversary they remained delighted with one another and their three kids.      

Turns out, using the Friends & Family Plan may be mate shopping’s Safe(er)Way, compared to cultural Do It Yourself norms.  Not only are people in arranged marriages in Jaipur, India, happier five and 10 years later than those who married for love—but Western-world Friends & Family are often superior judges of our relationship’s prospects, too.  For instance, when Canadian college students were asked to predict how long their current relationship would last, they often couldn’t discern between a Flame and a Fling.  But their parents and roommates could.  And did.    

But will the “candidates” agree?  Chances are, some won’t—and most  will.   Yes, people called Dave Weinlick insane, attention-seeking, and worse; still, he was besieged by 300+ eager would-be brides.  Women everywhere are keenly attuned to, and desirous of, signs of men’s willingness to Commit.  And few acts communicate the sincere if unusual readiness to wed quite like a guy who is having his sister conduct a full-on Search for Mrs. Right. 

That said, Dave Weinlick had something you don’t: Publicity.  When Erich Goode placed fake singles ads representing attractive men and women, 11x more men than women initiated responses.    So—don’t post a profile on your brother’s behalf and then wait for the women to waltz up.  You’re going to have to sort through women’s profiles, and then initiate further contact with those you think could be a good match.   

Which brings us to your query regarding which Web site is best for Fred.   To borrow their slogan, “For All The Right Reasons,” I recommend eHarmony.com:

1. For the marriage-minded man, eHarmony may well be the only site needed.  Whereas sites that allow men to prowl amongst endless photos have a tough time getting equivalent numbers of women to join—to wit, Match.com’s published 55% male to 45% female ratio—eHarmony activates women’s sense of safety and thwarts hunters by doling out the pix-n-profiles a few at a time. 

So although the eHarmony website claims “roughly equal” numbers of men and women members, and a company spokesperson admitted, under regrettable pressure from one Love Scientist, to a “slight female skew” in the membership (while refusing to divulge specifics)—I don’t believe it for one hot minute. 

Not only has every eHarmony member I’ve known (or been) concluded that there are many more women than men available at the site—but evolutionary psychology would predict that very thing.  It’s a marriage-oriented site whose model actively attempts the elimination of players, right?  And we all know to which gender such a site would most appeal.   Therefore, it’s a target-rich environment for serious, commitment-minded men. 

2. At eHarmony, not only are the odds good—the Goods are usually good, too.  Your brother has had enough of the reverse, and so have his kids.  Unlike other sites, eHarmony’s lengthy intake questionnaire contains at least one scale intended to eliminate liars, rejecting those who can’t represent themselves as Basically Decent Human Beings.  (They also reject Basically Gay/Lesbian Human Beings on-site, a problem eHarmony recently resolved at separate-but-equal CompatiblePartners.net, which uses eHarmony’s questionnaire, matching criteria, and emphasis on serious long-term relationships.)    

3. Personality tests: I’ve taken them all—well, all those at the three biggest dating sites.  And unlike competitors Match.com and Chemistry.com, which rely on variations of the Myers-Briggs personality test, eHarmony’s personality profiling is based on Costa & McCrae’s Big 5 personality traits: Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Openness to experience, and Extroversion.  Many scientists consider the Big 5 to have more validity, or real-world truth, than the Myers-Briggs.  

4. eHarmony matches people based on the single-best predictor of happiness: Similarity.   In addition to the Big 5, eHarmony also claims to match based on 29 other compatibility dimensions, including similarity of values, beliefs and attitudes key to wedded bliss.  The other sites just don’t do it, or don’t do it nearly as well.

Yes, as with many things eHarmony, the algorithm used to create matches is secret.  And it’s doubtful whether it’s even mathematically possible to match on 29 criteria in any meaningful way.  But at least there is an algorithm, and the Big 5 personality profiling is real.    

Other sites typically offer information—not matching.  For instance, Match.com and Chemistry.com both have members take a personality test, and then offer the results to each prospective date/mate.  But they don’t actually select the would-be partners for one another based on the results. 

So, Betsy, I’m not suggesting that you marry your brother off in less time than it takes to order a tall, skinny decaf latte.  But matchmaking is a growth industry, with 1,600 registered USA matchmakers as of 2007.  And you’re your brother’s ideal matchmaker—knowledgeable, loving and free of charge.  (You even throw in the child care.)  So I think your pre-screening plan, followed by a few coffee dates Fred takes with only the most Wonderful Women, is pure brilliance.    

Finally, your brother and his children already have a good woman in their lives —You.  I applaud the care and attention you’re showing not only for their present, but also their future.  I wish you all—you, Fred, his kids, and his future wife—every happiness. 

Cheers,
Duana

The author wishes to acknowledge the following scientists and sources:

Tara MacDonald and Mike Ross, for their work on parents’, roommates’, and students’ abilities to predict the length of students’ dating relationships.  

Usha Gupta and Pushpa Singh of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India, for their research on the trajectory of romantic love in arranged and non-arranged marriages

Thomas N.  Bradbury and Benjamin R. Karney, for their outstanding textbook regarding Intimate Relationships, and the statistics regarding the expansion of matchmaking in modern America

Erich Goode, for his empirical research showing that men are far likelier than women to answer online personals ads

Andrew Trees, for his enlightening book Decoding Love, and the discussion therein explaining why it’s mathematically unlikely that people can be meaningfully compared on 29 dimensions 

David Buss, for his ground-breaking text and original, multi-cultural research regarding evolutionary psychology and human mating behavior

Spokespersons for eHarmony.com and Match.com

If this article surprised, alarmed or otherwise interested you, please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.

Do you have a question for Duana?  Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2010

Are men—not just women—also seeking a walking wallet?  Are they really that adamant about youth-seeking?  What options might women have for maintaining Youth & Beauty once the youth part is gone?  And does planning for a life alone mean that you’ll really be alone?  Read on! 

Cheers, Duana

 Reader Comments from Men as Success Objects (5):

In my dating experience, which is sparse, I have found that men want the woman to be thin, beautiful and wealthy.  They meet me, thin, beautiful, healthy, sexy, intelligent, joyous, talented and kind, but when it comes to my pocketbook, having been required to live at poverty level to qualify for my son’s extensive medical care and now that my son has passed, cleaning up the debt from expenses that ensued during his last couple of years, they head for the hills.  All I can do is to say, “Oh, well,” and enjoy my own sweet company and that of my friends.  I may someday be dating material when I have fuller pockets.  I wonder if I will care any more by then. 

February 3, 2010 | Karen

Karen, I am sorry for the pain you’ve experienced about your son and about your dating experience after he passed. You’ve made a sad but good point about the finances of dating. Because men have been selected for having resources, economics can play out as follows:
—Men with abundant resources usually trade them for a woman who is much younger, unless they themselves are already very young;
—And if you’re at mid-life, men with less-abundant resources sometimes try not to spend/commit them unless they feel like they are already in love with you.

This may mean that your best bet will be with men you meet in social groups such as volunteer organizations, church/synagogue, etc. A guy who gets to know The Real and Really Wonderful You without dating you first has a chance to fall in love…if he asks you out, he’s already decided you’re Important to him.

Men commit their money where they have already committed their hearts, a reality discovered in studies the world over…so, gaining the heart is the key to getting a mate who is more concerned with what he can give you, than in what you might cost him.

One of my friends refers to dating as a blood sport. If you find yourself nodding in agreement, that can signal that you’re pretty worn from the dating experience, and may get a lot from taking a break as you’re doing. I hope you emerge from it rested and raring to go.

February 3, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Awesome Duana! Thank you so much for the great article.

February 3, 2010 | Barbara

I completely understand a woman’s desire for a potent provider and protector. While some may call that gold-digging, I say fair is fair. If the guys expect us girls to be young and hot, then we can expect them to be ambitious and rich. So there. At least the guys have some control over their end.

But in the final analysis, can’t we all just realize we NEED each other at a core level because we COMPLEMENT each other. You know, the ying/yang, alpha/omega whatever you want to call it thing. It works. And in my opinion, that’s where some of the die-hard feminists have gone awry when they say they don’t want/ don’t need a man. And then they become man-ish themselves, trying to do it all and be it all. Well, if we all behave like men, it throws the whole thing out of kilter.

What society needs, in my opinion, is for women to be women and men to be men. Sure, women can have careers and men can raise children and there can be a balance of the two, but at their core, the traditional roles do work. We need women AND we need men. As the article points out:

“Men aren’t just pleasant accessories to the core business of life, and never were.”

In other words, men are important. They have a job to do in this world. And if that means getting a shot in the arm of ambition (or losing the lady), then so be it. As for us girls, we have no choice but to get old. But we will try to keep ourselves up, and the *right* guy *will* recognize our many attributes (not just physical) when the right time comes along.

*End of soapbox”

February 4, 2010 | Joan

Barbara, most welcome—thanks for the kudos.

Hi, Joan, I think the next article will address some of the abundant frustrations we women feel at an aging process which is, if not inevitable, then better than the alternative ;). For now, let me agree that both sexes have always been important, and the post-60’s idea that men are superfluous has been contradicted by every study I’ve reviewed.

That said, what seems most vital from the standpoint of happiness and survival is not actually the gender or sex of the pair, but that there are Two. Humans who are committed to one another for life—regardless of their sex or sexual orientation—are on average a lot healthier, wealthier, and happier than people who are by themselves. Children similarly benefit from having two people who are together and committed to one another and to raising those kids—regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of those parents.

It appears that one main reason that Two Are Better Than One arises from a natural division of labor that couples work out, not to mention the companionship and emotional support they offer each other in the storms of life. In most couples—again, regardless of gender or orientation—one person takes on the primary breadwinner responsibilities, the other the primary homemaker responsibilities. In our culture, these roles are often shared, but rarely are they shared evenly. It is still the case among straight couples that the roles tend to shake out along semi-traditional lines. But whoever does whatever—as long as the jobs get done, and the hands get held, and the backs get patted, Life Feels Better.

Thanks for a thought-provoking contribution.

February 6, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Reader Comments from Women as Sex Objects (7):

Hi, again…this is a great site and I learn so much from it. 

So, I am a 54-year-old man who is single again, after 20 years of marriage and four fine sons. I don’t feel a real need to be married again, but I would gladly be partnered and exclusive. I’d like to add some observations to your list for women who are seeking a man …

#1 - absolutely on target. Having someone with whom I can converse naturally (because our interests, experiences, and educational backgrounds are aligned) is the best. Being able to nod and laugh, instead of shrugging and grimacing …

#2 - I’d offer “healthy, happy and active” as an alternative reading to “young and hot”. I definitely agree with the magic ratio. Curves are tough to resist! Shiny soft hair, cut stylishly, rocks. Anyone can benefit from a little “What Not to Wear” treatment, be it woman or man. A man can’t really **tell** how old you are … he can only hazard a guess from your skin, hair, shape and style. And, come to think of it, I would rather be with someone close to my age (so we have those shared experiences) rather than someone much older *or* younger than I am. I guess that last point will vary for different people.

#3 - familiar and friendly? Yep. It’s easy to fall for someone who thinks you are cool, too. People who are curious and interested in other people seem to have a built-in hotness.

#4 - Be the younger woman? Well, sure, I would not have disqualified a cool, smart 35 yr old … but my baby is 48+ and that seems just perfect. When I was first single, I was meeting and dating women 2 to 5 years *older* than me. Their ages were not the problem (I was very attracted to them), but problems cropped up with some of the other factors (matches in education, money, attitudes etc.).

#5 - Just don’t screen out people on the basis of our pedigrees, I guess. It goes back to wanting to be with someone who thinks I am great the way that I am. Don’t want to be “tested” or “sized up”, just want to enjoy shared time and space. And plenty of us guys are willing to make the effort for *you*, too.

Peace ;-) T

February 24, 2010 | Tom

Clever advice for people who want to fall in love again. Love is indeed sweeter the next time. Keep up the good loving here on your blog. By the way, it might interest you too to have your own free and easy to manage love and relationship forum. Good luck.

February 25, 2010 | Mitch

Dear Tom and Mitch, I don’t recognize your voices from earlier Q&A’s—Welcome, and thank you for your kind and thought-full responses. (Mitch, I’m interested in your idea regarding a relationship forum. Please write to me privately, if you don’t mind doing so, at Duana@LoveScienceMedia, and tell me more.) I hope you’ll contribute again soon.

Tom, thank you for your thorough and considered response. I find your #2 point to be particularly important and intriguing: “A man can’t really **tell** how old you are … he can only hazard a guess from your skin, hair, shape and style. And, come to think of it, I would rather be with someone close to my age (so we have those shared experiences) rather than someone much older *or* younger than I am.” There’s a lot in what you say, and I’d like to offer some more to go with it.

Women today do have an unprecedented opportunity to extend the appearance of youth and beauty. I don’t think many men would find Julia Roberts unappealing—even though she’s now passed an age that would have disqualified her as a female romantic lead only a generation ago. A man’s mating psychology is geared to note the *appearance* of youth and beauty, because in the ancient past from which that psychology descends, only the very young and healthy could have pulled it off. Now, we women have Options to emit those visual cues while being Of A Certain Age.

Unfortunately, though, the vast, vast majority of men do, really and truly, continue to express an outright preference for women who are chronologically younger than they are, and to at least attempt acting on that preference. This can be seen in numerous studies using various methods, including studies where men are asked to specify the age range they would most desire. Examine men’s filters on dating sites, and it’s apparent they’re not even looking at profiles of older (and, if the man is in his 40’s and 50’s, same-age) women the vast majority of the time. Analyses of personals ads the world over, and glimpses into arranged marriages, also show that as men get older, the age gap they prefer widens. And it does not widen in the direction of wanting an older woman.

Naturally, there are exceptions, such as your ownself. Science is fantastic at predicting what most of the people will do most of the time—but no method aside from my Magic 8 Ball shows what all of the people will do all of the time. Just as studies of smoking and cancer are valid even though some people use tobacco ‘til they’re 100 and die peacefully of old age, science continues to be accurate as a general predictor of What (insert the adjective) These Mortals Be. Which is why I Love Science ;).

And you’re absolutely correct that it would be to men’s (and women’s) long-term-relationship-happiness advantage if men preferred a partner their own age once they no longer needed or wanted to create new life, as you yourself have been open to doing. The data could not be clearer: The best path to Finding the right person is finding a Match in as many regards as we possibly can, and studies show that age-gaps greater than 9 years are a divorce risk. Sharing an age means sharing a generation, a set of experiences, perhaps a set of values—All Good for long-term happiness. But since our mating psychology comes from a time when life was brutish and short, our Genes aren’t quite as interested in our whole-life happiness as I would like them to be.

Finally, you’re right that “healthy and active” could be a better word choice than “hot” (although I won’t budge on “young”, lol). The word “hot” can be misconstrued as “tramp”—when what’s actually needed to attract a man long-term rather than for one night is allure that simultaneously communicates beauty and fidelity (anti-tramp).

And different men will find different women alluring, even though it’s clear that nearly every man (and woman) can and will agree on whether a particular individual is beautiful. For instance, lots of studies have had men and women rate photos of total strangers’ looks on a 1-10 scale, and the agreement is startling. But Beautiful In General is not the same thing as Beautiful To Me. Some men want the librarian-type; some the athlete; some the mysterious classic beauty. Whatever the specific type, though—men do want the curves and clear skin to go with it.

Some things just never go out of style.

Thanks again.

February 25, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Hey, you called me a “scent-sitive guy” last time I was here … I laughed. ;-)

February 25, 2010 | Tom

Tom—from now on, if you sign off as “Scent-sational Tom”, I’ll know who you are!

February 26, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

To a fairly large extent, these tips all boil down to (as Jon Stewart puts it), “Be a bleeping person!” It’s all about being a decent human being, getting out there and connecting to other humans, not lying, putting your best foot forward when it comes to packaging yourself, and not pre-judging men by their pocketbooks and birthdates.

Since being a bleeping person and getting a life are totally beneficial whether you succeed at re-mating or not, it seems like this is a pretty good deal. Get involved in groups that attract men — so you get out and do interesting things, maybe try a new hobby — that’s good. Looking young and cute generally involves stuff like sunscreen (which prevents bad evil skin cancer), nutrition (scurvy is a big turn-off), and a reasonable amount of exercise.

Similarly, training yourself *not* to pre-judge men on their wealth or other spawning-related markers might just help you (and me) to choose companions based on things that truly matter. And putting yourself into the best packaging you can will positively affect many areas of your life. Trust me, as a person who works at home, I find that I am more productive and interested in life if I dress in a manner such that I could (at least theoretically) go outside and interact with humans than if I wear the old sweats with the ketchup stains.

And yet, sadly enough, it may well be that none of these tips will work for me in my possible future widowhood.

Being as I’ve always been attracted to the silver fox type, or perhaps more the “silverback” type — men at least 35 years old, and usually about 10 years my senior — I have my own little issue: I couldn’t really date guys I found attractive until my mid-20s (because 35 year olds who want to date teenagers are quite creepy). And the pool will be even smaller if/when I am a widow. The period of my life when I can realistically pick and chose started late and will end early. It’s good that I have Asperger’s and therefore enjoy having a lot of time to myself!

Oh, if only I could develop a taste for younger men and enough money to hire Debbie Reynold’s plastic surgeon by then! (Seriously, the woman is 78 and has a face tighter than a drum skin.)

I wonder if the fact that I am expecting to be alone for the last 20 or so years of my life will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. My planning — financial, social, and emotional — is based on the idea that the current spouse is the last spouse I’ll ever have.

This is all theoretical at the moment: Mocha’s Dad has quite a bit of mileage left on him (knock wood). But I think the question is still a valid one: does planning for a realistic likely need to go solo actually block that 5% chance of finding someone?

In other words, while acting like you are on the hunt seems likely to benefit you if you remain single, does assuming that you are likely to remain single throw a spanner in the works?

February 25, 2010 | Mocha’s Mom

Dear Mocha’s Mom, Thank you for the cogent explanations and question: “…does planning for a realistic likely need to go solo actually block that 5% chance of finding someone? “

On the one hand, married women spend about 8 years as widows at the end of their lives, on average— 2 years for the typical age gap, and 6 more years for the genetic and psychosocial advantages of being female. In your case, you and your husband have an age gap considerably greater than 2 years. Which means your 20-year widowhood guesstimate is probably accurate, and it would be foolhardy *not* to do the financial, social and emotional planning you’ve engaged in so assiduously. You’ve done the smart thing.

Whether that very planning will keep you alone is less clear. Attitudes do predict behaviors—meaning that if your attitude is that you will necessarily remain single, then you’re likely to behave in line with that belief. And remain single.

But abundant evidence shows that behaviors also predict and change our attitudes. To wit, most Americans didn’t believe seatbelt use was necessary or desirable…until *after* seatbelt laws were passed. Once they started wearing seatbelts in accordance with the law, their beliefs fell in line that seatbelt wearing is a Good & Moral Thing. Same with laws on desegregation and divorce. Once people were forced to desegregate in the South of the USA, most came to believe integration was desirable, and to be friendlier to members of other races. And as no-fault divorce laws spread across the United States, many more people came to see divorce as an acceptable and even a Moral thing (such as divorce for the sake of the kids).

So here’s my best guess: If, once you are single again, you begin to behave as if you want a man in your life, then your attitude will follow. Preparing now need not prevent an attitude shift later. Just Act As If, and your heart will follow. And then you, too, will be in the best position to beat the odds.

February 26, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2009, Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.. All rights reserved.

Wives usually outlive their husbands, and no one seems to want a woman (read: old) who cannot fulfill her “duty” of looking hot and having children.  And there are a lot of “old” women out there. This just depresses me more the more I age, even though I’m happily married.  So my question is: How much hope exists for the post-menopausal woman to find another marriage partner after being widowed? 

Elizabeth

Dear Elizabeth,

First, the bad news:  Although about 25% of widowers over 65 remarry, only 5% of 55-year-old women wed again.  Sure, some women may be in permanent mourning, but not most; instead, men’s universal preference for youth and beauty locks many middle-aged and older women out of the marriage market.  To wit, younger widows are the likeliest to find romantic partners, but economic success is important for a man’s ability to remarry—which goes along with male and female mating preferences the world over.   

And much as we’d like to believe otherwise, beauty is an objective, mathematically identifiable fact.  Men worldwide value a woman with smooth and clear skin, good teeth, symmetrical features—and a waist about 30% smaller than her hips.  In fact, the hot waist-hip ratio is a constant across the globe at all discernable points in history in art, porn, and even in modern studies where men circle the silhouette they find most appealing.  Men don’t consciously think, “Oh, would you look at those fantastic child-bearing hips!  Gotta tap that!”  But women with the 7/10ths ratio are the most fertile; and as we move away from it, we also leave youth, health and fertility behind.  So, what seems a shallow desire in men—as women’s gold-digging must seem to them—is quite deeply based in reproductive success. 

Unfortunately, our genes want their own survival, not necessarily our happiness, and they have no “off” switch—so even older men continue pursuit of The Young And The Breasted, even if they don’t want more kids, have a vasectomy, or would be embarrassed if/when mistaken for their date’s dad.    

But what if you want to defy the odds?  Here’s how in five (mostly) easy steps:    

1. Remember that Character Counts.  We’ve all met him/her:  The Gorgeous One who appears anything but as soon as the mouth opens, revealing an appalling poverty of soul.  Turns out, men and women everywhere seek certain Core Characteristics in a partner: lovingness, kindness, intelligence approximately equal to theirs, and fidelity.  Nowhere are hateful, stupid, cheating mates in general demand.  So there has to be substance to back up your style. 

One element of that style should be sexual restraint until a real emotional attachment has formed on his side—unless all you’re seeking is a fling.  Waiting to have sex activates the she’s-high-status/not-a-cheater male mating psych, and gets his dopamine rising, helping him fall in love with you if he’s so inclined.  But having sex too soon has many men repeating Groucho Marx’s line: “I wouldn’t join any club that would have someone like me for a member.” 

Therefore, Be Your (Best) Self With Appropriate Boundaries—and proceed confidently to step two. 

2. Although who you *are* keeps the man, how you *look* gets his initial attention.  Which means the most direct route to securing The Approach is—of course— to continue looking young and hot, to the most reasonable extent you can. 

Don’t starve yourself, though.  Most American men prefer an average-weight woman— not a human stick insect, as women incorrectly conclude.  Also, weight plumps the face, making you look younger.  Recent research on identical twins shows that the heavier twin is usually judged as considerably younger—7 years, in some cases—once middle age is reached (before midlife, the reverse is true). 

Whatever you do, *never* show an outdated or misleading photo of yourself, or lie about your age (please refer to “Character Counts,” above).  Men will not, as women often assume, feel drawn in by your charm despite the false physical advertising.  Instead, they’ll only feel angry once they see the real you—much as you might feel if a prospective date hinted that he was a financially stable professor, but turned out to be a struggling grad student with $70,000 in debt and no plan to pay it down.  

3. Become familiar and be friendly.  We all want to think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that part comes only after a man begins to really know you.  So…let him get to know you.  The mere exposure effect demonstrates that familiarity breeds contentment, not contempt.  And men regularly fall for mere mortals they’ve gotten to know in social organizations.  Strategy?  Pick some testosterone-laden places you’d like to go; go often (without a posse); and use the Women’s Most Successful Pick-Up Tactic In The World: Smile and make eye contact. 

4. Be the younger woman.  Science has found a pain-free way to lose years fast: Date men whose age exceeds yours by a decade or more, because once in their 50’s, men reliably prefer this age gap or greater.  And please don’t automatically reject men because of their age while expecting them to ignore yours…

5. Lower your standards for your prospective mate’s success—money, education, property ownership, an Oscar…None of this matters if you’re done raising babies and have satisfied your own survival needs.  Crying foul while pursuing your own genetically driven plan is not only unfair, it’s almost guaranteed to keep you alone once you’re nearing/passing menopause.  Only a quarter of men are remarrying after their wife’s death—typically, the wealthier men who can command a younger audience.  A sizeable portion of the other 75% might wed, too, if financially secure women their own age would relax their standards for material goods. 

Elizabeth, not only do the data show this to be sound, but without exception, every woman I know who married at or after mid-life implemented some version of this plan.  So go forth with optimism, wear sunscreen, exercise…and enjoy your husband and the happiness you share now.    

Cheers,

Duana

The author wishes to acknowledge the following scientists and sources:

W.P. Cleveland, for research regarding “Remarriage probability after widowhood”

Devendra Singh, for evidence regarding the waist-to-hip ratio and its importance in female beauty 

David M. Buss, for multi-cultural research regarding what men and women really want, and why they want it

If this article piqued, intrigued or otherwise inspired you, it might help others as well.  Please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.

 Do you have a question for Duana?  Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com

 All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2010

Per our home-making man, most of you rose to Albert’s defense as doing a valuable, perhaps the most valuable, job by raising successful, happy kids.  Then, things took a philosophical turn:  Are stay-home dads in less-happy marriages than those in more traditional roles?  What’s the impact on kids?  How do stay-at-home roles work when there are two moms—or two dads?  What’s the role of science in values—and values in science?  Of our laws on our values?  Should homemaking be an at-your-own-risk endeavor?  Are humans evolving to become “tamer”?  And does wanting the traditional path make you “less evolved”?  Read on…

Reader Comments (13)

I have always wondered what the long-term “happiness” statistics are for families with stay-at-home dads. I assume the children respond well, but how about each spouse (or spouse equivalent). And what about for gay couples? How does gender play out there when it comes to the classic dad-role?

February 8, 2010 | Monica

Monica, Thanks for a cogent question (or two). Indeed, children do well as long as the division of labor is working, regardless of who is handling it and regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. And most couples, gay or straight, have one member who is primarily responsible for hearth and home, and another whose primary role is bread winning (although most often, both people engage in both activities rather than one or the other exclusively).

Another article is going to treat the subject of how gay and straight couples differ from one another. For now, very briefly, it appears that when homosexual unions function, they function exceedingly well—and are more egalitarian in the division-of-labor and decision-making than heterosexual relationships tend to be.

And children reared by labor-sharing straight parents grow up to be more egalitarian spouses, too, which is good for the happiness of the marriage. After all, one of the best predictors of marital success is simply whether the husband accepts his wife’s influence—and whether she influences with kindness rather than criticism.

Beyond that, though, I am unaware of the marital satisfaction stats for the stay-home dads and their partners versus the marital happiness for those families holding more traditional gender norm breakdowns, particularly with regard to whether the dad is staying home because he and his partner mutually chose that, versus the scenario where he’s staying home and the other partner is nursing active resentment about the arrangement. I suspect there’s quite a difference between agreeing on Dad’s presence in the home, and having it become the default because he can’t or won’t work elsewhere.

The data I know focus more broadly on worldwide results regarding how those interested in women (whether they themselves are lesbian or straight) vie for female attention by showing signs of commitment, provision and protection—whereas those who want men (whether they themselves are gay or straight) try to offer youth and beauty. And some of those data show, for instance, that a woman is more likely to ignore, leave, or cheat on a man (or a woman) seen as “beneath” what she can get on the mating market than one who’s a “good deal” in the looks-for-resources swap; this is why, in the last column, I recommended the woman seek elsewhere rather than commit to a man of low ambition if she herself is gorgeous in addition to youthful. Hence, a straight woman who has the youth and beauty desired by straight men is an affair risk if she is mated to someone who cannot or will not provide the economic security she can command on the mating market. And men seem to have some implicit understanding of this.

This ancient knowledge, then, is what I think drives psychological discomfort over issues that some facets of our culture have moved beyond. We’ve moved a very long way in the direction of open acceptance that men can be as nurturing as women, and that stay-home daddying can be as valid a choice as stay-home mommying. But in this, our culture is changing faster than our cave-man and -woman psyches.

That’s not a reason to stay in place. Rather, it’s a reason to acknowledge and understand where the discomfort comes from when what we want does not necessarily feel like what we need, and to understand that if this works well—leaving successful children in its wake—then someday, even our Genes will agree that Dads At Home are valuable, indeed.

February 8, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Yes, our culture is changing faster than my cave-woman psyche is. And I’m not convinced it’s going in a good direction. If the point is to perpetuate the species, then the cave-people had it right: Men provide and protect, women bear and raise children, and people are heterosexual. Today the folks who deviate from this formula are called “progressive” or “open-minded.” If I am still of the cave-woman psyche, does that mean they are more evolved than I am?

February 9, 2010 | Ann

Ann, Thank you for your comment. Love Science in general, and this article in particular, aren’t per se about whether The Ancient Psyche we’ve inherited is right or wrong (or left or right)—but whether and how it is working in today’s environments. Some aspects are usually helpful, such as our abiding love for our children. Others work out tragically in today’s first world, such as our abiding love for salts, fats, and sweets—once hard-to-get commodities that were life-sustaining and are today all too easily obtained and disease-promoting. Or, as psych author David G. Myers has pointed out, in some ways our Genes are “prepared for a world that may no longer exist.”

Data have been collected regarding whether different kinds of relationships and families “work”, from a standpoint of psychological adjustment, health, income, etc. What is most important from the data is not whether the two people are male and female, nor which one is in charge of what task, but whether the relationship is one where both parties are fully committed, feel respected and feel fairly and kindly treated. At an even more basic level, what matters most also is whether people are partnered at all— because loneliness is literally hard on the heart, health, wallet, and emotions, having important ramifications for early death and disability. But from a scientific perspective, being gay or straight, traditional or non, is not an issue of who is more evolved.

To get to the heart of your query, I think you are speaking for many of our readers here when you voice discomfort over cultural changes; others are upset when changes don’t come fast enough. Issues of heart, home, and sexuality are politicized precisely because they get at our core and humanity—they tap into our inherited psyche, a psychology which had to be quite interested in these issues just so we could survive.

Almost all Love Science readers may occasionally find themselves upset at or disbelieving of the science that does not agree with their viewpoint. To wit, some believe that divorce is the best solution if the parents have fallen out of love; I used to concur, but after seeing just how vehemently science disagrees, I changed my mind since the data would not budge. Same with living together prior to marriage; unless the commitment is there in the form of a firm wedding date at move-in, it’s become abundantly clear via data that cohabitation is a divorce risk and is strongly tied to less-happy marriage. Again, this isn’t what I would have expected from my personal views—but I changed those views when I saw that the data wouldn’t shift. Others want to think that gays and lesbians are unnatural, can’t have good relationships, make poor parents, or “convert” their adopted kids to being gay as well; science flatly disagrees. I, too, disagree, and am happy that science supports my viewpoints in this case.

Science disagrees with my own personal values and ideals about as often as it backs them up; it doesn’t give results that fall neatly into one particular political camp or ideology. And so science challenges us to face facts rather than preferences. It gives us the best data we have from the past 60 years and more—and those are the data I’m honored to present to you weekly.

Thanks again for your comment.

February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

I appreciate this column’s emphasis on science. However, when the science conflicts with my personal values, I’m going with my personal values. Otherwise, it would be too easy to use science to manipulate.

February 9, 2010 | Ann

Ann’s point about science vs. values is an interesting one. We generally cling to our values, and (usually) well we should, but what ARE values if they contribute to a decline in civilization?

As an example (on an unrelated note), I spent most of my childhood severely rejected by my peers. Adults thought the world of me, but I was mercilessly tormented by kids, and it affects me to this day. As much as I would like to blame these kids for many of my current problems, I still have to look at what they did as nothing more than a survival mechanism. It’s human nature to single someone (or group) out, and those who don’t join in run the risk of becoming the target. How can I reasonably fault my peers for participating in this sort of survival of the fittest? It goes completely against my values to pick on someone, (especially to the degree I personally faced,) but perhaps my lack of willingness to engage in such activity is what put me in that position in the first place.

So even though this is not the issue at hand, the point I want to make is that values don’t seem to have a place in human survival. I don’t quite know what to do with that, but it’s there, nevertheless. Just because our value-system calls for us to “rise above” base animal instinct, that instinct is still there and must be recognized. We can’t effectively deal with an issue we don’t know exists, and this column has been amazing at pointing out phenomena many of us like to pretend aren’t real.

February 9, 2010 | Penelope

Penelope, hi. Your note is at once sad and fascinating. I offer this in response: We can reasonably fault bullies, even though bullying has served people well enough in the past (and sometimes in the present) that it persists, much the same way that we can find fault with rapists, even though raping may have served a Genetic purpose in the past (and is still used in this way in wars and leveraged by men of very low status today). Although you’re right that it’s been basic to human psychology to find tribal and individual differences and aggress based upon those, the cultural changes we choose to make will shift our evolution. They have already done so—witness how language has altered what we do, how we do it, and with whom. We humans have a hand in shaping what we become culturally, and in so doing, ultimately genetically. (If you’ve not seen the PBS series, “Evolution”, and want to know much more about how human-created environments are shaping our own evolution now, I highly recommend it.)

In “Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors “, Nicholas Wade’s exhaustive review of DNA/human genome/anthropological/linguistic and other data regarding our pre-history, he cites evidence that humans have become less warlike over the ages; evidence that we are “taming” ourselves. For instance, we literally aren’t as thick-skulled as we used to be—humans, once so predatory upon one another that it seems the dog was bred primarily to bark a warning that hostile bipeds were near, can now afford thinner skulls that resist a club none too well. Another piece of evidence is our ability to live in groups larger than 200——for millenia, unheard-of, but commonplace once we developed the ability to trust and to subvert aggression towards those to whom we’re not closely related. It’s been of huge survival value for us to culturally create an evolved psychology that embraces the ability and necessity of being able to live in large groups, if one merely considers lifespan and infant mortality stats. Even stranger anxiety in infants, which develops at the same phase of life as object permanence, may be a throwback to the time when babies were at a much greater risk of coming to harm from non-relatives than they are today.
Of course, these records are so ancient, and the conjecture so abundant, that it’s impossible to say for certain that this is what has happened; but enough evidence, assembled in enough different ways, creates a fuller picture.

Which brings us to your provocative idea that maybe values don’t have much place in our survival. I think they do. And as you and Ann have caused me to point out, I think so based on…guess what…data ;). Some anthropologists think language primarily evolved to allow us to gossip about one another—really. I can’t make up stuff that good. With or without controlling one another’s behavior via gossip, we’ve been excellent at directing our own evolution through culture ever since language emerged. So bullying occurs—but our schools are pushing more and more towards a zero-tolerance policy, and we no longer blame the victim. Rape happens—but is considered abhorrent nearly everywhere, no matter how advantageous it is from the male’s reproductive/Genetic standpoint, and in our society we are at least headed towards not blaming the victims. And people still spend most of their resources on themselves and their immediate family—but they also have developed an ability to send relief and aid to the poor of Haiti, whether they will ever be affected by or know anyone from that country, and even if their money could be spent on the family they live with.

Some people even write about science and love, for almost free, and find value therein ;). Thank you for your support in reading and contributing to Love Science. It makes my day that you’re finding it useful and, I hope, fun, as I do.

February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Well, the science certainly explains why Albert feels as he does. But I consider raising healhy, happy children to be the Most Important Job in the World! Good for you, Albert!

Duana, I get that women want a provider and protector. But isn’t having a reliable guy at home a huge comfort and relief? And it’s not that Albert cannot earn money and have a career - he’s just choosing children over that at this point. And something attracted Victoria to Albert in the first place - probably his compassionate heart, which of course, is always there no matter the profession.

But I like your advice and Albert should certainly make a change if this is bothering him.

Personally, I am looking forward to the day when my current project pulls in enough dough that my husband can quit his job (ok, I admit that he hates it) and be a … kept man :)

February 9, 2010 | Gillian

Hi, Gillian, I love your “kept man” idea. My husband eagerly awaits the day when he can live likewise :). And my Inner Nerd and Outer Mom most certainly agree that raising successful kids so their own kids are successful is the be-all and primary Genetic directive (our Genes may not care whether we’re happy, but I do).

Genes aren’t the only motivator of our emotions, of course. The culture, community and family in which we originate are of great importance, too. Albert’s wife may have come from a family of women who embrace careers, and men who make those careers possible; Albert may arise from a string of wonderfully nurturant men. To the extent that we inherit our desires, though, I just wanted Albert to see why he might feel uneasy. Ironically, that may make him easier about his situation. I hope so.

Thanks as ever for the thought and levity you bring to these discussions.

February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Another wonderful article Duana! My only comment is on Albert’s comment on Victoria’s explanation to her colleagues “what it is I don’t do for a living”. I can see how Albert can feel less worthy if Victoria is sending those strong signals out. I hope this is something they can work out, besides Albert’s own desire for more “manly” accomplishments. It takes a great man to be able to show the patience and stamina for being a stay home dad. Women have been doing this extremely well for most of time. Men, well, they still have a long way to go to make this a natural feeling. Maybe some home improvement projects around the house might fill in some of the void. No matter what though, I wish Albert the best on whatever path he chooses. And hope he pats himself on the back for a well done job!!!

February 9, 2010 | Vincent

Vincent, I love your comment, and hope Albert sees it and the other words of encouragement here. Thank you!

February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

It’s hard to select a favorite column from Dr. Duana, but at this point in time, I am choosing this one. Oh my, so many thoughts swirled through my mind as I read it. Yes, the quote about our genes not ready for the 1960’s, much less 2010, was delightful! But the one I glommed upon was “Homemaking may not pay much in income, but it’s of tremendous economic benefit.” This subject has been discussed quite a bit through the past several decades, and it hits a nerve with this Kept Woman.

Hubby and I are so traditional it’s almost embarrassing, as you well know, Duana. But we chose this traditional cultural model at a time when cultural models were evolving, in a positive way, toward the acceptance of 2-career families. I was disturbed, however, by the inevitable backlash (the pendulum always swings) which suggested that a person (in my case, a Woman) could not truly *fulfill* oneself without a Career. I thank the Powers That Be every day that when Social Security was established, Kept Women such as I were considered of some economic benefit to our society and deserved some measure of economic stability in *Old Age.* But that discussion is not On Point on LoveScience, other than underscoring our culture’s acceptance of the genetic survival mode revealed in Dr. Duana’s research. I will not blab on about the *I Want It All* schtick…none of us can *Have It All* at the same time. Nor will I blab on about an article in the Tulsa World several years ago, about a couple who determined when they married that everything would be *equal*…they had a lovely little outline and Plan of how marriage and parenting could be Politically Correct. Funny, though, they found themselves slipping into a more Provider/Nurturer style, because it just seemed to work better that way. And they were happy with it. Dr. Duana’s research reveals that there is a reason it worked better that way. Whoops…I blabbed on, didn’t I?

LoveScience has provided an excellent opportunity for me to learn more about Why We Do What We Do and Why We Feel The Way We Do About What We Do. As Duana pointed out, many women have angst about the Home Stretch….how much harder it must be for a man to face that same scenario, given not only our Culture, but our Genetic Survival Mode! EXCELLENT ADVICE for Albert from the Doc, as usual. I also enjoyed the comments regarding Values/Science….the data about Divorce For The Sake Of The Children (as revealed in another column) was fascinating.

I’m one of those gals whose values came from a very traditional grounding, and despite my rebellion against them the Core remains. I’m also one of those lucky ones who never had a problem with Low Self-Esteem…because it never occurred to me that I was not worth something, I never felt I had anything to prove. Just wanted to live out my chosen Role as Homemaker well, and have a little fun at the same time :-). Thanks again, Duana.

February 10, 2010 | Carmen

Dear Carmen, How very kind. Your good opinion is very worth the having, and it’s heartening that this article was so affirming for you.

I hope the Capital-H Homemakers of both genders find this article supportive of their efforts. Too often, we confuse “not bringing in a paycheck” with “not contributing”. Sociologists and economists have pointed out that if a homemaker were to do the exact same jobs for another family, he or she would suddenly be considered a valuable wage-earner. And independent financial planners really do recommend term life insurance for full-time homemakers because of the economic cost of replacing the work they are doing for free. (When my baby was a baby, I was advised to take out even more insurance than my husband—that’s how valuable I was, lol.)

Similarly, the legions of people who are caring for an elderly parent, disabled spouse, or special-needs child, are saving our society tremendous money, often almost solely at their own personal expense. Even today, gerontologists point out that well above 2/3 of elder care in the USA is provided by adult family members, usually the spouse or adult daughter, even when the parent/spouse could qualify for a nursing facility at low- or no-cost. And older adults who are volunteering are serving and producing, regardless of what their income may state. Sum total: Productivity and income are not entirely intwined, just as they are not entirely separate. Productivity—all of it, in all its forms—matters.

All of which is why laws have and (decreasingly) do protect stay-home spouses in the event of divorce or death of the wage-earner. Sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others and society is, in my opinion, not something a person should be expected to do entirely at his or her risk. To the extent that we have created a “parent-and-homemake-at-your-own-risk” scenario with our divorce and death laws, however, sociologists such as Linda J. Waite have found that women are choosing to bear fewer and fewer children; do so later; stay home more briefly, if at all; and invest less of their emotions in their marriages. For those interested in a breathtaking journey into how our laws and social values are changing marriage and the way people feel and behave in marriage, Waite’s book “The Case for Marriage ” is a must-read.

Carmen, another point you made, about the division of labor (DOL), merits more (as you put it) blabbing. Sociological and psychological studies have for decades shown that even among the best-educated and/or most liberal male-female households, the DOL remains fairly traditional. Women usually take on the lioness’ share of child-and-family upkeep (while earning bread); men usually take on the larger portion of wage-earning (while helping at home). Although the DOL is rarely equal in the sense of being identical, the happy couples are those who agree that it is fair. More about this another time.

Finally, thanks for tapping into one of my favorite sayings: “You can have it all; just not all at the same time.”

Blab on ;).

February 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

A year ago this Friday, a new kind of advice column was born: Love Science.  Although editors had recommended the standard opinion format, I had something new in mind—the concept that six decades of ongoing relationship science could form an entertaining, useful and, most important, valid basis for Research-Based Relationship Advice For Everyone.  

But would readers agree that science has something to offer beyond mere opinion’s realm?  Would they trust me enough to submit their own problems for consideration?  Would they comment afterwards—not with the usual Internet vitriol, but with human contact and thoughtful observations?  Heck—would they read the thing at all?!   The resounding answers, then and now, are:  Yes.  They—You—would, did, do.  And so, starting from five months of piloted columns at Facebook, Love Science formally launched at www.LoveScienceMedia.com in late May, 2009.

By June, Amazon.com had invited Love Science Media to begin publishing for Kindle.  Within a month, Love Science had gained Amazon’s best-selling position for Life & Love, relationship, dating, marriage, and advice categories, where it has remained ever since.  It also continues to hold a top-3 position for all behavioral sciences, as well as a top-25 spot in the entirety of the sciences.   And it is the second-highest-ranked of all 8,750 blogs Amazon carries. 

So thank you, Wise Readers, for supporting Love Science with your enthusiastic attention, re-posts, comments, forwarded links, and private letters.  Baby is thriving, and she could not have done it without you.  You are appreciated more than I can express. 

And if you’d like to celebrate with me, I have a request:

Would you send the main link or a favorite Love Science article link to just one person you know who doesn’t already read it? 

Then it’ll be fun to see how much Baby has grown again by this time next year.  Thank you again.  Happy Valentine’s Month, all.  And…Happy Birthday, Baby. 

Cheers,

Duana

February 10th, 2010

My wife is an outstanding breadwinner, so by mutual consent I’ve been the stay-home parent to our four children.  But a decade + of diaper-and-daycare duty has undermined my self-esteem.  Although Victoria appreciates the career sacrifices I’ve made to raise the kids, I can see the disappointment in her eyes as she explains to her well-heeled associates what it is I don’t do for a living. 

And I need to regain my sense that I could provide if needed.  I don’t even have a life insurance policy.  I want to get a doctorate, position myself to provide, and be Da Man. 

So, yes, I know this sounds adolescent, but I’m worried about how to present it to Victoria so she doesn’t feel like I’m starting all over again at mid-life, undermining the family stability, etc.  Am I being ridiculous to feel all of the above?  And how do I present my needs to Victoria? 

Albert

Dear Albert,

Although many women experience angst if the Home Years become the Home Stretch, it’s different—and science predicts, worse—for men.  To be a man is, in a very real psychological sense, to feel that you are what you do, and that what you do had better generate an income and economic security.  That’s true no matter how supportive or rich your wife is. 

And you’re not being one whit ridiculous to be conscious of these feelings.  In fact, your psychology is doing its job—safeguarding you from losing at love by remaining finely tuned to even the remotest possibility of rejection or defection.  As last week’s column covered in detail, women everywhere have an almost overpowering tendency to desire and require Provision and Protection from our mates.  Recent research shows that even wealthy women prefer men who provide better-still in the world of work…or at least in the world of finance.  Consequently, you men have inherited a motivating push towards giving women what we want, so you’re not left out of the mating market, left alone once you’re smack-dab in the middle of it, or left in the genetic dust through cuckoldry. 

Which means staying at home, especially for a man, is likely to whip around a big, fat red psychological flag—even if both parties agree that’s the arrangement they prefer, and even if your wife weren’t looking at you askance over cocktails with the Joneses.  And recent cultural changes in gender roles usually don’t eliminate the discomfort, because our emotions are in part s-l-o-w-l-y evolved; our Genes haven’t even heard of the 1960’s yet, never mind 2010.  A quote from Genes on the subject could well be: “Sociology, schmociology.” 

So, although it does not sound as if Victoria is likely to abandon you over your non-traditional roles, enhancing your self-esteem is a valid reason to begin moving towards greater employability options.  And unless she would leave you a huge windfall in the event of her death, it’s economically essential for you to be able to survive and thrive if something happened to Victoria, too. 

But whether that entails a doctorate is another matter.  It’s perhaps too-little-known that there’s an inverse relationship between income and education beyond a master’s degree—meaning an education above a master’s is usually associated with less rather than more wealth accumulation.  And for many professions, a master’s is all that’s necessary; a doctorate may over-qualify you.  So if you haven’t already, figure out what you want to do, what amount and type of education is truly required to do it, and then present your idea to Victoria.  (If you’re not absolutely sold on one career already—or even if you are—you might read I Could Do Anything If I Only Knew What It Was by Barbara Sher.)  As for undermining the family stability, there are now many ways to attend graduate school part-time so that you’re not compromising your family’s needs. 

Having identified your core educational and career goals, simply and clearly present your desires to Victoria.  For instance, you could say, “Victoria, you and I have long agreed that you’d make the money and I’d make the home.  That worked out well for a long time, and I’m proud of what we’ve built together.  But now, I want to prepare for the next phase of our lives.  For many reasons, including our security and my self-respect, I want to enter grad school now and plot out future economic and career success from my side.  I’ve thought it over carefully, and would like to talk to you about it in detail.”  Then set a time for the talk, keeping the discussion framed in non-critical terms so your relationship has the best shot at happiness, and your goals have the best shot at being supported by Victoria. 

Moreover,—unsolicited, non-science-based advice warning—it is vital to insure yourself.  Immediately.  Ask any financial planner:  Homemaking may not pay much in income, but it’s of tremendous economic benefit.  If you were to pass on, it would cost your family dearly to replace everything you do.  Tutoring, after-school care, meal planning, cooking, cleaning, bill paying, summer care, holiday planning, pet sitting, taking stock of who-needs-what-when, running errands, running a taxi service, home maintenance, lawn upkeep, medical dealings, trip planning, making life Good—all these things take time that someone besides you would charge a lot for.  Get a term life-insurance policy and be done with this decision. 

Finally, remind yourself: Although your self-esteem has worn thin during your time at home, you are doing an important job in your family, and you are worthy of an equal voice in this partnership.  Happy couples support one another in their ambitions and dreams, to the greatest extent they can, and it’s time for you to feel support for your own career goals and needs now.  I would say the same thing to any homemaker ready for a transition, and much moreso a man who is going to feel emasculated if he has no profession waiting when the kids are grown.  Your status will indeed rise with your wife as you become more employable—and perhaps even more vital, it will rise within yourself, too. 

Cheers,

Duana

 If this article surprised, intrigued, informed or otherwise interested you, please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.

 Do you have a question for Duana?  Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com

 All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2010

I met Dave in 2002 in our 20’s, and we broke up two years later.  I dated around later, but he never did, and I couldn’t quit thinking about him.  Although we’re back together, an issue from our break-up remains:  He works for his mom and does not seemed inspired to do more.  I love him in many ways, but I wonder:  Will this always bother me?

Janie

Dear Janie, 

ITE (In This Economy), there are plenty of folks who are un- or under-employed through no fault of their own.  And if you were partnered with such a man, my advice would be to note his strident efforts to attain full employment, and to be supportive of those. 

But there’s no sugar-coating this:  No matter how wonderful Dave is, if he can’t show more get-up-and-go, a mountain of science shows you might get-up-and-leave…or stay and find yourself perpetually annoyed, worried, losing respect and having affairs.  And the better-looking *you* are, the more true that is. 

In fact, as exposed by mating psychology super-sleuth and Evolution Of Desire author David M. Buss, male lack of ambition is a huge, universal and global female turn-off.   But why that is so, and whether it has to ruin your relationship with Dave, are separate issues. 

As it happens, our shallow-seeming desires are as heritable as Great Grandpa’s brown eyes or Grandma’s china.  At the dawn of pre-history, when life was tougher than a mastodon’s hide, some men and women managed to solve the very large problems of survival and reproduction.   They, and only they, became our ancestors—passing down not just their appearance, but the psychological mating preferences that had ensured their success.  So, for instance, men who desired older, infertile, unhealthy women may have lived happy lives—but nobody called them Dad.  Instead, men who lusted after youthful, beautiful (read: fertile) partners prevailed, leaving male offspring who desired likewise.  Their shallow desires reflected a deep genetic need that exists even now.  

Women, on the other hand, had little use for The Young And The Restless, since men of almost every age could procreate.  In fact, it often served women’s needs to marry up in age…and a lot of other ways.  This inherited mating psychology is clearly visible even today as women on every continent reject suitors in too little possession of What Women Want: An ambitious, hard-working, resource-wielding, commitment-making Provider and Protector.  

In one experiment, young women were shown a photo of a young man in a business suit, *or* the same young man in a fast-food uniform.  Not surprisingly, women who saw Mr. Up-And-Coming were more impressed and more interested in a date than the women exposed to Mr. Want Fries With That.  But it was the same guy, just with a different implied career!  Other recent research on remarriage rates shows that even older men, now widowed, can marry much more easily if they are in possession of resources such as a good income, a home, and other signs of economic success. 

Why women’s shallow emphasis on ka-ching?  Because, just as men’s beauty bias is actually deep, so is women’s demand for resources.  Our ancestral mothers who preferred and won a Committed Provider and Protector secured survival and success for themselves and their children.  Women who failed in this task—women whose man gave the resources to other women or to drinking or to gambling, wouldn’t commit, wouldn’t provide, left them alone with nursing infants and no hunter, or actively abused them and their families—tended not to thrive and pass their genes forward to surviving or successful  children.  This remains true even today, even in the United States.  Men aren’t just pleasant accessories to the core business of life, and never were. 

Although it may feel affirming for men to know that they’re Needed, men don’t necessarily enjoy being viewed as success objects, any more than women like being regarded as sex objects.  It can be tough to reside in a world seemingly populated by gold-diggers.  But there you have it.  Operating below the conscious radar, our genes don’t necessarily want us to do what makes everyone happy—they want us to do what gets them passed forward. 

But, Janie, does Dave’s lack of great ambition have to be a problem for your relationship?  Unless you do something, it will be.  That’s because our genes have no “off” switch; they don’t reach a point of satisfaction and then let us feel safe.  For instance, wealthy women have been found to prefer a mate who is even wealthier than themselves—even though these women are in no danger whatsoever of failing to survive or reproduce based on material goods.  Just as we women seldom feel young and pretty enough, we tend to think our partners should earn more and more money.  Maybe these preferences serve us to a point, but once our survival is taken care of, they just make us and our mates unhappy, and that’s the rub. 

So, what to do?  Your preferences arise from unconsciously motivated desires, so see if you can use your conscious mind to override those.  Ask yourself:  Does Dave make enough to carry his share of the load in life—and in your view, is he likely to continue that?  Would he step up to support you entirely if you could not work, or if you needed and wanted to nurture young children or aging parents?  Is he more devoted to you than to his mother’s every whim?  Is he willing and able to make an enthusiastic commitment to you?  Is he emotionally stable and loving and kind?   And—this is important—are you so much better-looking than Dave that you’re often approached by wealthier and/or better-looking men? 

In short, are you two otherwise well-matched, and is he good mate-material—just perhaps a bit less ambitious than you are, or want him to be?   

If not, move on now; Dave won’t satisfy you, and an unhappy you won’t satisfy him, either. 

But if Dave gets the green light on all the queries above, he sounds like a great man and a wonderful catch, and I’d advise focusing on his good qualities, rather than on ambitions that are only so-so.  You’ve loved him for years, and he’s loved you single-mindedly.  He could be The One.  Look more closely and see.

Cheers,

Duana

 If this article piqued, intrigued or otherwise inspired you, it might help others as well.  Please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.

 Do you have a question for Duana?  Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com

 All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2010

Welcome to Love Month at Love Science, where you’re proof that relationship research is more than academic; it’s imminently applicable, helpful and fun.  For 60 years, scientists have done their level best to discern what makes relationships thrive or dive.  Their primary tool?  Voluntary participation. 

Which is where you come in.  Now, you and your Sweetie can participate in the latest projects from some of the leading Love Scientists anywhere, including the esteemed Dr. Diane Holmberg and colleagues—and you can even have a shot at cash and other prizes for so doing.  So if you’ve been in a relationship for at least six months—regardless of sexual orientation or marital status—please click this link and get started on Study 1 or Study 2 now. 

And if you can’t participate, I’ll bet you know couples who can.  Please forward this column to them. 

If you do this, pat yourself on the back and accept my warmest regards.  No, I don’t get anything but a “Thank you kindly” from scientists whose work I endorse.  But I endorse their work because I know it’s vital.  And without volunteers like you, I’d never have anything to write about. 

So thanks much.  And remember: The love you save could be your own.

Cheers,

Duana

 Do you have a question for Duana?  Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com

 All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2010

Here, the letter from Dr. Diane Holmberg regarding these projects.  The information also appears on the website linked above:

Researchers at Acadia University would like to learn more about what makes relationships tick, and are hoping you can help us out!  We currently have two studies available; both are conducted completely on-line, so they’re open to participants anywhere.  To take part, you must have been in a relationship (dating or married; heterosexual or same-sex) for at least six months. 

The first study, conducted by Kristina Hobson, a master’s student at Acadia, is investigating how couples cope with stress in their lives.  Partners fill out some background questionnaires, then complete a brief (10 minute) diary each evening for five days, Monday – Friday, describing stressors that either they or their partner have experienced that day.  The total time commitment for this study is about 2 hours, and it requires both partners to participate. 

The second study, conducted by Courtney Black, an honours student at Acadia, is investigating factors that predict relationship memories.  Part 1 of the memory study can be done immediately after completing the background questionnaires for Kristina’s diary study.  It involves describing two relationship memories that fit criteria we give you, and then filling out some questionnaires about those memories.  Part 2 occurs about one month later, and involves answering some questions based on your diary responses.  This study takes approximately one hour in total  (about 30-45 minutes for Part 1, and less than ½ hour for Part 2).

Alternatively, if you’re not able to participate in the diary study (e.g., partner is not available), then you could do the first part of Courtney’s study in a “stand-alone version”.  However, we do encourage you to do both studies if you possibly can, as it helps us learn more, plus substantially increases your potential rewards (see below).

By participating, you’ll help us learn more about relationships.  Plus, we promise to report back (probably around April, when the studies are complete) to let you know what we found out! Also, to thank you for your time and effort, we have an attractive prize draw available.  The grand prize is $1000 (Canadian) cash!  There are also other prizes available — $100 gift certificates that can win you a romantic seafood dinner for two, gift baskets, DVDs, and much more; or a shiny new red iPod nano.  Each part of the studies that you complete earns you participation points that can be entered into the prize draws of your choice.  For example, doing the “stand-alone” version of Courtney’s study earns you 100 participation points.  Doing all portions of both studies earns you 400 points, quadrupling your chances of winning.  Help us learn more about relationships, and help yourself win some attractive prizes, too!

To learn more, or to participate in the studies, go to www.research-on-relationships.com. Thanks, and we hope to hear from some of you soon!

Dr. Diane Holmberg

Professor of Psychology, Acadia University

Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada

diane.holmberg@acadiau.ca

Refusing or seeking a mate because of smell: It’s normal for women.  But readers were left with questions:  Do people with specific genetic profiles choose specific kinds of colognes?  Why do men fall in love using their eyes—women, their noses?  What if someone rich, powerful and good-looking stinks—can women overlook (oversmell?) that?  And what role do factors like anti-depressants, age, diet and sexual orientation play in smell and sexual attraction?  Read on! 

Cheers, Duana

Reader Comments (20)

So, what if I *really* like the way he smells normally but not when he gets all sweaty? Which smell is the “right” one?

January 20, 2010 | Laura

I absolutely agree. This is why I always let her pick out the cologne I wear as well as the scented candles in our bath and bedroom, massage oils, body sprays - you name it.

January 20, 2010 | Matt

The women in the three most serious relationships in my life all made it known that they loved the way I smelled; including the one I married. I’m very much onboard with women and the scent theory.

For guys, I don’t think we notice a female’s scent so much in the beginning, but moreso long after the relationship has ended. I can be walking through a mall to this day and catch a whiff of a perfume that takes me back 20 years to a specific old girlfriend.

January 20, 2010 | DW

Are we talking about perfumes or natural body smells? Or are we chemically drawn to a fragrance because it mimics our own and so the analysis is the same?

January 20, 2010 | Monica

Good questions, all—thanks much. Monica, we’re talking about natural body smells—smells that may be partially masked by colognes, bath oils, massage oils, soaps, deodorants, and the dozens of other products that get in the way of The Important Scent of our partner’s natural skin. During courtship, one good strategy is to specifically request that your date *not* wear anything scented. You need to get The Real Him.

But not *too* real, right, Laura? The right smell is how your beloved’s scent comes across when he’s been away from the shower for a few hours…but not after he’s been felling trees, mowing the lawn, or enjoying a power workout. Science finds that an overpowering stench is an overpowering stench—and a lived-in cleanliness is next to My Side Of The Bed, lol.

Which brings us to you, Matt. Although it’s great that your sweetie likes to pick out fragrances, it’s important for her to like the way you smell in the raw. That said, there is at least one big But: As it happens, people with a given MHC seem to gravitate towards particular colognes. In other words, men who have a particular MHC profile seem to wear a particular scent…and it’s possible that their partners pick those scents for them, too. (You score and win, Monica. If you ever quit your day job, there could be a social science position waiting for you.)

And DW, what you’re talking about probably has to do with classical conditioning, meaning that after you’ve had a special scent (a lover’s perfume) paired with something really wonderful (the woman herself) repeatedly, you’re going to feel a Wonderful, Special Something when you get a whiff of that aroma again. In a process called “spontaneous recovery,” it can even happen many years after the relationship is over. Kinda like hearing Your Song from a relationship long since done.

January 20, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

I only have one thing to say…it’s quite obvious that my long-time hubby and I have different MCH’s. He’s always smelled good to me, even before I began taking the pill and after I stopped. This union was obviously Meant to Be, for many reasons.

January 20, 2010 | Carmen

Carmen, I’d like to elaborate on your story a bit more. You remarked that you loved your husband’s smell before and after The Pill…am I right in guessing that you were not on The Pill when you met him?

Increasingly, scientists are recommending a number of behaviors to help women make sure they don’t wind up with a bad genetic match and/or get skunked; here are some:

1. Make sure you’re *off* The Pill when you are courting, at least long enough to know that you love your sweetie’s natural smell. Ditto for Depo Provera and all other hormonal forms of birth control. Whereas some advise waiting ‘til you’re in love and then getting off hormones to see if this is the Right Match, I think that is quite dangerous…because if you have already fallen in love, then you’re going to have to break your (and maybe his) heart to break off the relationship if you can’t stand the man’s smell. Instead, *start* courtship sans chemicals, and *then* get on the birth control (if that’s the option that best-suits you) after you’ve figured out that you are into this man’s scent.

2. Stay *off* anti-depressants if you are looking for a long-term mate. Just as with The Pill, some research indicates that anti-depressants have mucked about with women’s sense of smell; so some women, after finding a great relationship, think they’ve achieved enough stability to go off their medication—only to find they can’t tolerate their man’s scent.
Of course, one solution is a lifetime on anti-depressants, and some people truly require that —for them, being on anti-depressants during courtship is not only fine, it’s preferable. But for the majority of others who can respond to treatments such as counseling/therapy, or who find that a daily half-hour walk works as well as an anti-depressant (which studies now show is true for many folks)—best to skip the AD’s when you’re looking for Mr. Right.

January 20, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

This sent privately from “Paula”:

“I have been on the pill most of my adult life because of “female problems”. Although I’d been in a couple of long-term relationships and dated a lot, nobody ever felt right to me for marriage.

“Then, I took myself off of the pill recently because I thought my body needed a break. Interestingly, it wasn’t long after that that I met a wonderful-smelling man who I think could be The One. Coincidence?”

January 20, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Paula, that is fascinating—and congratulations on meeting a prospective Mr. Right. I don’t know of any research about whether women on The Pill tend to overlook The One (or a possible One—seeing as there are several, actually). But it certainly fits in with theory. Also, scientists have long observed that many women report a decrease in libido when on The Pill. To the extent that our sex-drive is hindered by hormonal contraceptives, it’s a reasonable guess that we’re less open to relationships and/or less motivated to find one. Horniness gets people up off the couch and into courtships, in other words. And The Pill can mess with that.

That said, The Pill has dramatically changed women’s lives for the better, and this article is not an anti-Pill diatribe. Because of hormonal regulation, women no longer have to suffer with overly long/painful/irregular cycles; can lower their risk of death from bearing too many children at too young an age; and can plan their families with greater effect than many other methods provided beforehand. It can be a tremendous boon to many.

Just not, perhaps, when giving a guy the first sniff-over.

January 20, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

LOL I was asking the same question as Monica when trying to get a better understanding of what the article was referring to but read it a second time for clarity. I, like Matt give creative license to my mate to ensure a fragrance that she prefers.

But to the article’s point, I have never heard this nor had scent brought up by a woman I was with so I guess I’m glad it hasn’t been an issue or at least it was never brought up. I imagine this discussion could be made as well towards women too???

I wonder if the natural scent of a man is a real deal breaker even if it could be trigger to incompatibilities between partners. I mean, I am sure Vicki has had men with approving scents but obviously didn’t work out. I’ve heard continuing stories of actors Brad Pitt and Mathew McConaughey being known to be malodorous. I find it hard to believe they are hard pressed to find women not willing to overcome that flaw.

I do find it fascinating how nature has so many ways to show chemistry. I will be mindful of the woman sniffing unusually long on my neck. Now I will know what’s going on. Pepe Le Pew needs love too. :)

Great stuff Duana!

January 21, 2010 | Quinn

Duana - the point I was trying to make is I feel women notice a man’s natural smell from the beginning, while guys only notice a woman’s perfume; and it tends to stick with us for long periods of time, whether we like it or not.

January 21, 2010 | DW

Nice article, and very comforting. Glad to know I’m not alone. Years later, I figured out why I didn’t marry the FBI agent. He was sarcastic. Also, he didn’t smell right and neither did his apartment. One time when we kissed he accidentally burped in my mouth - Oooh the taste! Yuck. And he ate his fish with the skin on it.

January 22, 2010 | Gillian

Dear Quinn, thank you for your as-always delightful response and thought-provoking observations. To answer:

No, the observation doesn’t hold with women; men are considered to be insensitive to smell/MHC in their prospective partners, instead using visual processing as the first-and-foremost sense. You guys quite literally fall in love with your eyes, and even the various reward centers of the male brain light up when viewing someone who is young, beautiful and of the sex to whom you’re oriented. Presumably that’s because males can a) procreate throughout their lives with b) a number of partners limited only by their ability and desire to get them into bed. But the partners do need to be fertile—and youth and beauty are the best ways for men to gauge that quality. (Women, who can procreate but a few times and for only a limited number of years, need to make sure that Every Egg Counts.)

On the other hand, just as you’ve probably seen some hot women who were a total turn-off once they opened their mouths, a great scent all by itself is not going to make the deal for women. As for Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughey: Well, I hadn’t heard anything about their aroma, appealing or otherwise, but here are several responses:
—First, very few people are universally malodorous (love that word, btway). Some women may find Brad/Matt to be truly smelly, but it’s highly doubtful that all (or even most) feel that way, because…
—There will be many women who are MHC-diverse from those guys, and who will think they smell grand; and…
—Women everywhere seek men who have Great Genes for their offspring, and it’s almost a guarantee that Matt and Brad have that going for them. Symmetry is one of the most obvious cues to Greatness, and women can immediately detect symmetry in at least two ways: eyesight and scent. Eyesight reveals symmetry because symmetrical people are literally those that both men and women find to be best-looking. And scent (for women—again, men can’t do this) is a cue to symmetry as well; a recent study by Randy Thornhill and others showed that women given *only* t-shirts to sniff (and no other info) found the most symmetrical men to be the best-smelling.
All of which is to say: I really, really doubt that Brad and Matt are stinky to most women.
Even if they were, though, their wealth and power confer something else women everywhere seek: Provision and protection. Which means some women would indeed accept them for their abilities in these areas.

But take it from me: A horrible-smelling man is a horrible-smelling man, and if it’s bad enough, nothing is going to overcome that for those of us women with operating olfaction. Put it this way. If a woman were truly hideously ugly to you, could you overcome that? Perhaps…but in a world of women you find appealing, there would be little impetus, and the lack of attraction/chemistry would always stand in the way of real intimacy with her.

Thanks again, Quinn.

January 22, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

DW, point taken. At least you’re not a female rat, though. They have to sniff the males’ urine to determine MHC compatibility.

January 22, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Hi, Gillian, Anything else you weren’t wild for? LOL. Sounds like ditching Mr. FBI was a good call.

PS: I’m glad this article was a relief to you.  I’ve since heard from a number of women who said they had felt just plain crazy to ditch a man over scent, and are hugely unburdened to realize their noses are just doing an important job. 

January 22, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

I have several questions as I find this subject quite intriguing. First, at what age do women actually develop this sense? And is the sniffer consistent throughout a woman’s life? I am thinking of a mother who can’t understand what her daughter sees in a potential mate as I would think that the olfactory gene deal is passed on by dear old mom.

Diet can be a strong determinant of one’s scent. So what happens to a woman’s affection should a man convert from beer guzzling carnivore to a strict vegetarian?

Finally, what about all our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters out there? Are gay men more like women in there need to appreciate smells? And what about lesbians who can run the gambit from hard core butch to lipstick? Can they be grouped together or is there some kind of continuum deal that explains it?

By the way, your articles rock! However, with all my questions, feel free to tell me that I have to wait for the book   :-)

January 22, 2010 | BandB

Hi, BandB,
Fascinating queries you’ve posed, some of which I can answer, some not (I suppose the “nots” are the parts that will wait for the book, lol).

Let’s start with how women detect the MHC. They don’t necessarily like the same smells as Mom, because Daughter got her MHC from a combination of both her parents’ MHC alleles. And what any woman finds appealing is based on her unique MHC + what she senses about a particular Special Someone. So—Daughter could well enjoy the Scent Of A Man that Mom just doesn’t get.

The age issue, though, is even more interesting to me. If this ability has to do with procreation—which does appear true—, then we’d expect olfaction to a) be keenest starting in puberty, and b) to wane as the reproductive years are drawing to a close. Although I’m familiar with research showing that women’s sense of smell does indeed decline with age, I’m not aware of any research that shows when the ability to sniff out compatible MHC’s develops or degenerates. The science I am aware of uses women of the traditional college age rather than looking at a variety of age profiles. So: Your idea to compare women of various ages on MHC scent-sation has the makings of a great doctoral thesis.

Diet can and does effect how any of us smells to others. However, again, scientists have not (to my knowledge) examined exactly what effect that is when it comes to MHC detection. In Claus Wedekind’s original research in 1995, the male t-shirt wearers were instructed to avoid foods with strong flavors, deodorants, etc…anything that could adulterate their natural scent. Other researchers have since followed suit.

(continued)

January 23, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

As for olfaction and mate selection among gay and lesbian folks: The best summary I have found of that work appears in science writer Jena Pincott’s book “Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?” Here, some of the research she reports on:

—Some findings indicate that straight women find the scent of men’s underarm sweat to have a literally relaxing and sexually arousing effect, especially during ovulation, presumably because of androstadienone (and closely related testosterone derivatives) in it. Heterosexual men are not moved by male sweat, though. Androstadienone also increases luteinizing hormone, which makes eggs ripen sooner—clearly not an impact that occurs with men smelling men.

—Okay, so that answer had nothing to do with homosexuality. But this one does. A reward area of the brain apparently involved in mate selection—the hypothalamus—“lights up” in brain scans, depending on the sniffer’s and sniff-ee’s sexual orientations. Straight women and gay men show more hypothalamus activity from the male pheromone androstadienone. But straight men prefer the Scent Of A Woman. And lesbians’ brains showed more activity when smelling estrogen derivatives. But, says Pincott, the results for lesbians were inconsistent, and it’s not clear why.
Other research I’ve read could give us a clue.  There is not just one type of lesbian. As you’ve pointed out, there are lesbians who are more femininely typed, and those who are more masculinely typed. And they don’t necessarily respond to various things the same way.

—Yolanda Martins and Charles Wysocki did olfaction research with over 80 straight-or-gay participants who smelled armpit sweat of gay and straight strangers (No, they didn’t stroll up and sniff armpits; participants didn’t even know what they were being tested on. They just sniffed pads that had been worn in strangers’ armpits, and then rated how much they liked the smell.). Results?
a) Gay men loved the armpit smells of other gay men more than any other smell;
b) Everyone else put the smell of gay male armpit sweat dead last;
c) Gay men were neutral about straight women’s armpit scents, but actively disliked the sweat smells emanating from samples from lesbians and straight men;
d) Lesbians had the same profile of scent preference as straight men and women did—liking the smell of heterosexuals (male and female) the best.

Which brings us to yet another question: *Why*? Answers are speculations at this point, so here are the hypotheses:

First, it appears from many different studies that many women have a more malleable sexual orientation than men do—in other words, a man tends to be either entirely gay or entirely straight in orientation, whereas some women have an element of choice in the matter.

Second, the odor of a man is determined in part by his testosterone profile—and sexual orientation may flow from that. It behooves women to sniff out those who are Frankly Not Interested In Us, Dahling! And perhaps it’s a boon to men who are gay to sniff out other men who are gay—after centuries of persecution and risks of hatred that can still be appallingly high.

Thanks again for some riveting questions.

January 23, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Thank you Duana, for this site and its insights. Just wanted to share a guy’s experience regarding the scent of a woman.

I have definitely been able to smell a fully-clothed woman’s natural unenhanced aroma. I don’t know how, I just have done it. Since I became single a few years ago and started dating again, I had to back away from a woman who was very interested in pairing up. Her natural aroma was just “off” (and she was healthy, clean and tasted good). Some perfumes would cover it, but when the perfume was omitted, I could easily smell her light natural scent, and it was not for me. We stayed friends instead of getting involved.

No such problems with the woman I really dig. She smells and tastes excellent. I like being close to her. No reservations at the deepest level.

January 24, 2010 | Tom

Tom, thanks for sharing your experience. Science is excellent at telling us what most of the people do most of the time—but not what all of the people do all of the time. You’ve got me quite curious as to whether you’re detecting MHC, or if your awareness is solely about what/who smells pleasant. Either way—nice to know of such a scent-sitive man out there, lol. And welcome to Love Science.

January 24, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2009, Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.. All rights reserved.

I recently got off The Pill, and suddenly cannot tolerate the way my husband smells, although his hygiene is fine and nothing’s changed but my perception of his not-so-pleasing aroma.  Is this a real thing with women in general, or am I just weird?  And is there a solution—quickly, please? 

Vicki

 Dear Duana,

I fell in love with someone online, and then when we met in person, he (not his cologne—he) smelled wrong.  I felt like I must be crazy, but there was nothing to be done about it.  Is there something concrete to the idea of “chemistry”?  And how can I avoid getting skunked again? 

Jewel

Dear Vicki and Jewel,

Scent is a deal-maker or deal-breaker for many women.  So much so, “He just smells wrong” is a common marital therapy complaint from women.  So much so, recent science found that smell trumps *all* other senses —including sight, sound and touch— in women’s decision to have sex with a particular guy.  So much so, one of my friends passed up a hunk other women treated like a Victoria’s Secret (un)dressing room when her nose wouldn’t allow proximity closer than three feet. 

And she asked a question that may have crossed your mind: “What is wrong with me?” 

As it happens, nothing.  In all likelihood, her sense of olfaction was operating exactly as it should—and so is yours.  Because when a woman can’t stomach a man’s scent, something may be wrong with *the match*, in the form of too much genetic similarity.  The MHC (major histocompatibility complex) gene cluster effects body odor.  Not coincidentally, it also creates the best, broadest-spectrum immune system for Junior when Future Mom and Dad bring very *different* MHC’s to the boudoir.  And women—but not men—can quite literally smell the right and wrong match for them.        

Here’s how it works:  Given *nothing* but a set of worn-two-nights T-shirts from male strangers, women rate each shirt for scent sexiness; researchers keep data on the wearers’ and sniffers’ MHC’s.  Results?  Women find the MHC-similar guys to have a repulsive stench—and the MHC-dissimilar men to have real appeal.  So, one woman’s trash bin is another woman’s treasure, just depending on the divergence between his-n-her genes.  (Women can also sniff out the best-looking men, and may be able to detect sexual orientation using nothing but their noses.  Really.) 

It’s easy to see how women would inherit a way to sniff the best path forward for our progeny, passing this ability to our own daughters in the process.  Given that we females have so few chances at procreation, and live with the results (aka Kids) for decades, we benefit from being attuned to all markers of our prospective children’s survival.  And at least one study suggests that parents with too much MHC commonality may have trouble conceiving, and their kids are likelier to be underweight at birth, fail to thrive, be physically unattractive, and/or have skin problems than kids with Choosy Mothers Who Choose Diversity.  (Men, being biologically freer to follow a spread-the-seed creed, can afford to ignore women’s aroma as a guide to compatibility—and usually do.) 

Problem:  the Internet and The Pill derail this ancient compatibility test—the former by depriving women of essential information during early courtship, the latter by keeping women’s bodies in a state of pseudo-pregnancy where they may be drawn to kinship scents associated with protection—genes like Dear Ol’ Dad’s—that would otherwise turn them off.  Indeed, a variation on the smelly-shirt studies finds that women on hormones are attracted to the opposite of what Nature would intend—preferring the scent of men with MHC’s closely *matching* their own. 

What to do? 

Well, Jewel O’ The Internet, your solution is straightforward: Stay off The Pill and other hormones while you’re courting, and meet prospective partners for a sniff-n-greet as soon as you’ve established an interest.  Just lean in, hug, and slowly, sneakily inhale when you first arrive and again as you’re leaving.  You might also contemplate using GenePartner.com in conjunction with your current e-dating site, or ScientificMatch.com, two sites that strive for partnering based on genetic compatibility in addition to more traditional social and emotional criteria—although even then, you’d still need to conduct your own smell-test upon finding a Person Of Interest. 

And Vicki, there’s a solution for you, too, *if* you can get back on The Pill and stay there for…well, maybe forever.  It is very likely that returning to use of oral contraception will eradicate the off-putting odor, renewing your interest in your mate. 

But be warned:  Staying off The Pill permanently and hoping for the best is *not* likely to bring harmony to your olfaction or your lovelife.  In fact, your current state of distress may be an affair risk.  To wit, one recent study collected MHC’s and other relationship data on 48 long-term couples.  Results?  As couples’ MHC’s were increasingly alike, the women reported being less attracted to their mate; rejecting his sexual overtures more often; enjoying sex with their man less; fantasizing about other men; and following through on those fantasies with real-life sexual affairs.  And whereas most couples share about 20% of their MHC genes in common, among couples sharing half, the affair risk for women was 50%.   

Upshot?  Jewel, however you meet a man, if you don’t yearn to live with your nose at his neck, better to back off and trust yourself for so doing.  And Vicki, if you want this marriage to work, it’s Pill time again, stat. 

Because when it comes to love, we girls follow our nose.    

Cheers,

Duana

The author wishes to acknowledge the following scientists and sources:

Claus Wedekind and others, for ground-breaking work on MHC’s, The Pill, and smelly t-shirts

Christine Garver-Apgar, Steven Gangestad, Randy Thornhill, and others, for their fascinating discoveries about MHC and infidelity

Carole Ober, for work showing how women in “closed communities” still seek out a man with a different MHC, as well as data regarding fertility and disease based on genetic compatibility (various PDF’s at her site)

Christine Garver-Apgar, Steven Gangestad and Randy Thornhill, whose science has shown that women can detect the most symmetrical men by smell alone

Andrew Trees, Decoding Love

Cindy Meston and David Buss, Why Women Have Sex

Jena Pincott, Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?

Rachel Herz, The Scent of Desire

If this article piqued, intrigued or otherwise inspired you, it might help others as well.  Please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.

 Do you have a question for Duana?  Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com

 All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2010