Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    human mate preferences over 37 countries

    this paper takes a look at sexual mate preference over 37 countries..table 2 shows how inportant financial prospects are..and over the whole 37 countries this is greater for females than for males..this shows the hypergamy of women is worldwide..other tables show ambition..age, which shows that men look at younger mates..how good looking the partner is..and virginity..

    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/SexDifferencesinHuman.PDF


    " the mere fact women think it's acceptable to lie their way into a relationship, sums up exactly why they should be avoided".

    "All women,who seduce or betray into marriage by scents, paints, high heeled shoes, padded bossoms incur the penalty of the law enforced against witchcraft, and upon conviction the marriage shall be null and void" act of parliament 1770

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    here is the new link:
    http://news.utexas.edu/2015/08/06/ge...te-preferences

    AUSTIN, Texas — Men’s and women’s ideas of the perfect mate differ significantly due to evolutionary pressures, according to a cross-cultural study on multiple mate preferences by psychologists at The University of Texas at Austin.

    The study of 4,764 men and 5,389 women in 33 countries and 37 cultures showed that sex differences in mate preferences are much larger than previously appreciated and stable across cultures.

    “Many want to believe that women and men are identical in their underlying psychology, but the genders differ strikingly in their evolved mate preferences in some domains,” said co-author of the study and psychology professor David Buss. “The same holds true in highly sexually egalitarian cultures such as Sweden and Norway as in less egalitarian cultures such as Iran.”

    Mating is multidimensional and requires matching a pattern of mate preferences to a pattern of potential mate features. The researchers suggest that these patterns of mate preferences are far more linked to gender than any individual mate preference examined separately would suggest.

    Researchers found that they could predict a person’s sex with 92.2 percent accuracy if they knew his or her mate preferences.

    “The large overall difference between men’s and women's mate preferences tells us that the sexes must have experienced dramatically different challenges in the mating domain throughout human evolution,” said lead author and graduate researcher Daniel Conroy-Beam.

    According to the study, men favor mates who are younger and physically attractive. Women seek older mates with good financial prospects, higher status and ambition.

    “Because women bear the cost of pregnancy and lactation, they often faced the adaptive problem of acquiring resources to produce and support offspring, while men faced adaptive problems of identifying fertile partners and sought cues to fertility and future reproductive value,” Conroy-Beam said.

    Of the 19 mate preferences that researchers considered, five varied significantly based on gender: good financial prospects, physical attractiveness, chastity, ambition and age. Four other preferences — pleasing disposition, sociability and shared religious and political views — were not sex-differentiated.

    “Few decisions impact reproduction more than mate choice,” Conroy-Beam said. “Mate preferences will therefore be a central target and driver of biological evolution. We have found some promising initial results, and we think this holistic approach will help answer a lot of questions in mating research in the future.”

    The study “How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences?” was published in the August 2015 issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
    new link:

    https://web-beta.archive.org/web/201...cesinHuman.PDF
    Last edited by wool.wizard; April 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM. Reason: new link

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    http://link.springer.com/article/10....199-016-0677-z

    Print ISSN 0360-0025
    Online ISSN 1573-2762
    Publisher Name Springer US

    Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research
    Yuliana Zaikman,
    Michael J. Marks


    Original Article
    First Online: 02 September 2016
    DOI: 10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z
    Cite this article as:
    Zaikman, Y. & Marks, M.J. Sex Roles (2016). doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z

    8
    Views


    Abstract

    The sexual double standard (SDS) has been a focus of research for several decades. Numerous anecdotal accounts of the double standard exist, detailing its consequences and impact on women’s, as well as men’s, sexual behavior and identities. Empirical research, however, has yet to completely corroborate the degree to which the double standard pervades everyday life. The disparity between anecdotal accounts and empirical evidence related to the SDS may be the result of the partially atheoretical approach with which the SDS has traditionally been examined.

    The goal of the present paper is to encourage researchers to take a more theory-oriented approach to understanding the double standard. Our goal is not to provide another comprehensive literature review or an argument for the “best” theory, but rather to promote theory-based perspectives in future SDS research. In the current paper, three theoretical perspectives—evolutionary theory, social role theory, and cognitive social learning theory—and their relevance to the SDS are discussed. We discuss four hypotheses, one related to the core tenet of the SDS itself, and three related to moderating factors, including characteristics of evaluators (i.e., gender, gender roles beliefs, and sexual history), characteristics of targets (i.e., relationship type engaged in, sexual activities participated in, and power status), and social factors (i.e., cultural background, historical era, and socialization agents). Existing research is also interpreted in light of one or more of the theoretical perspectives in the hopes of guiding future research.


    Keywords
    Sexual double standardEvolutionary theorySocial role theoryCognitive social learning theorySex differencesSexual behaviorGender roles
    REFERENCES:
    References


    Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for ‘hooking up’: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42(5), 1191–1206. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Anselmi, D. L., & Law, A. L. (1998). Questions of gender: Perspectives and paradoxes. Boston: McGraw Hill.


    Aubrey, J. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50, 505–514. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000023070.87195.07.
    CrossRef


    Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 160–173. doi:10.1037/a0014583.
    CrossRef


    Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


    Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.


    Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Buss, D. M. (2003). Sexual strategies: A journey into controversy. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 219–226. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_7.
    CrossRef


    Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


    Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. doi:10.1037/h0033731.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


    Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003066X.54.6.408.
    CrossRef


    Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.


    Escoffery, D. S. (Ed.). (2006). How real is reality TV?: Essays on representation and truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.


    Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2006). Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 491–499. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.017.
    CrossRef


    Fugère, M. A., Escoto, C., Cousins, A. J., Riggs, M. L., & Haerich, P. (2008). Sexual attitudes and double standards: A literature review focusing on participant gender and ethnic background. Sexuality and Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 12, 169–182. doi:10.1007/s12119-008-9029-7.
    CrossRef


    Gaunt, R. (2012). Breadwinning moms, caregiving dads: Double standard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 1–22. doi:10.1177/0192513X12438686.


    Gentry, M. (1998). The sexual double standard: The influence of number of relationships and level of sexual activity on judgments of women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 505–511. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00173.x.
    CrossRef


    Goodwin, R. L. (2001). Perceptions of female physical attractiveness in African American and Caucasian populations: Testing evolutionary and sociocultural theories. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 1642.


    Hird, M. J., & Jackson, S. (2001). Where “angels” and “wusses” fear to tread: Sexual coercion in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Sociology, 37, 27–43. doi:10.1177/144078301128756184.
    CrossRef


    Higgins, J. A., Trussell, J., Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2010). Virginity lost, satisfaction gained? Physiological and psychological sexual satisfaction at heterosexual debut. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 384–394. doi:10.1080/00224491003774792.
    CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral


    Hogben, M., & Byrne, D. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 58–71. doi:10.1080/00224499809551917.
    CrossRef


    Howell, J. L., Egan, P. M., Giuliano, T. A., & Ackley, B. D. (2011). The reverse double standard in perceptions of student-teacher sexual relationships: The role of gender, initiation, and power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 180–200. doi:10.1080/00224540903510837.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Iwawaki, S., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sexual attitudes among British and Japanese students. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 98, 289–298. doi:10.1080/00223980.1978.9915973.
    CrossRef


    Jacoby, A. P., & Williams, J. D. (1985). Effects of premarital sexual standards and behavior on dating and marriage desirability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1059–1065. doi:10.2307/352351.
    CrossRef


    Katz, J., & Farrow, S. (2000). Discrepant self views and young women’s sexual and emotional adjustment. Sex Roles, 42, 781–796. doi:10.1023/A:1007051131544.
    CrossRef


    Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 23–35. doi:10.1300/J082v26n04_02.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–172). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.


    Koon-Magnin, S., & Ruback, R. (2012). Young adults’ perceptions of non-forcible sexual activity: The effects of participant gender, respondent gender, and sexual act. Sex Roles, 67, 646–658. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0201-z.
    CrossRef


    L’Armand, K., & Pepitone, A. (1982). Judgments of rape: A study of victim-rapist relationship and victim sexual history. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 134–139. doi:10.1177/014616728281021.
    CrossRef


    Marks, M. J. (2008). Evaluations of sexually active men and women under divided attention: A social cognitive approach to the sexual double standard. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 84–91. doi:10.1080/01973530701866664.
    CrossRef


    Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.
    CrossRef


    Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Confirmation bias and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–26. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-8866-9.
    CrossRef


    Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The impact of social interaction on the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54. doi:10.1080/15534510601154413.
    CrossRef


    Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 361–368. doi:10.1080/00224499909552008.
    CrossRef


    Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83. doi:10.1300/J056v13n02_05.
    CrossRef


    Mischel, W. (1966). A social-learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 56–81). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.


    Mohipp, C., & Senn, C. Y. (2008). Graduate students’ perceptions of contrapower sexual harassment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1258–1276. doi:10.1177/0886260508314299.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). “Nice women” don’t say yes and “real men” don’t say no: How miscommunication and the sexual double standard can cause sexual problems. Women and Therapy, 7, 95–108. doi:10.1300/J015v07n02_08.
    CrossRef


    Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 321–333. doi:10.2307/2786800.
    CrossRef


    O’Sullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men’s and women’s personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33(3–4), 159–181. doi:10.1007/BF01544609.
    CrossRef


    Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 86–109. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb02007.x.
    CrossRef


    Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38. doi:10.1037/a0017504.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Reinholtz, R. K., Muehlenhard, C. L., Phelps, J. L., & Satterfield, A. T. (1995). Sexual discourse and sexual intercourse: How the way we communicate affects the way we think about sexual coercion. In P. Kalbfleisch & M. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. LEA’s communication series (pp. 141–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


    Reiss, I. L. (1960). Premartial sexual standards in America. New York: The Free Press.


    Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26, 188–198. doi:10.2307/349726.
    CrossRef


    Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.


    Richardson, L. (1997). Gender stereotyping in the English language. In L. Richrdson, V. Taylor, & N. Whittier (Eds.), Feminist frontiers V (pp. 112–116). New York: McGraw Hill.


    Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14, 305–323. doi:10.1177/1464700113499853.
    CrossRef


    Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 250–263. doi:10.1177/0146167212472375.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Sahl, D., & Keene, J. (2010). The sexual double standard and gender differences in predictors of perceptions of adult-teen sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 62, 264–277. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9727-0.
    CrossRef


    Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000051.
    PubMed


    Shapurian, R., & Hojat, M. (1985). Sexual and premarital attitudes of Iranian college students. Psychological Reports, 57, 67–74. doi:10.2466/pr0.1985.57.1.67.
    CrossRef


    Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–248. doi:10.1080/00224498909551508.
    CrossRef


    Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among U.S. college students: Comparison with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261–288. doi:10.1007/BF02438165.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the double standard disappeared? An experimental test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 24–31. doi:10.2307/2786887.
    CrossRef


    Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 387–408. doi:10.1080/00224499109551615.
    CrossRef


    Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., Walsh, R., & Anderson, C. (1988). A revision of the Reiss Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 821–828. doi:10.2307/352650.
    CrossRef


    Sprecher, S., Regan, P. C., McKinney, K., Maxwell, K., & Wazienski, R. (1997). Preferred level of sexual experience in a date or mate: The merger of two methodologies. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 327–337. doi:10.1080/00224499709551901.
    CrossRef


    Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1395–1405. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Tanenbaum, L. (2000). Slut! Growing up female with a bad reputation. New York: Harper Perennial.


    Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009–1037. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01009.x.
    CrossRef


    Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.


    Waggett, G. J. (1989). A plea to the soaps: Let’s stop turning rapists into heroes. TV Guide, 10–11.


    Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23, 347–388. doi:10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00013-3.
    CrossRef


    Whyte, M. K. (1978). Cross-cultural studies of women and the male bias problem. Behavior Science Research, 13, 65–80. doi:10.1177/106939717801300111.


    Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13, 496–502. doi:10.1177/1066480705278729.
    CrossRef


    Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90021-U.
    CrossRef


    Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.


    Williamson, L. M., Parkes, A., Wight, D., Petticrew, M., & Hart, G. J. (2009). Limits to modern contraceptive use among young women in developing countries: A systematic review of qualitative research. Reproductive Health, 6, 1–12. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-6-3.
    CrossRef


    Wilson, J. B., Tripp, D. A., & Boland, F. J. (2005). The relative contributions of waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index to judgements of attractiveness. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7(3), 245–267. doi:10.1080/14616660500238769.
    CrossRef


    Zaidel, D. W., Aarde, S. M., & Baig, K. (2005). Appearance of symmetry, beauty, and health in human faces. Brain and Cognition, 57(3), 261–263. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.056.
    CrossRefPubMed


    Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71, 333–344. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1.
    CrossRef


    Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2016). The influence of physical appearance and personality on the exhibition of the sexual double standard. Sexuality and Culture, 20(2), 255–276. doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9319-9.
    CrossRef


    Zaikman, Y., Marks, M. J., Young, T. M., & Zeiber, J. A. (2016a). Gender role violations and the sexual double standard. Journal of Homosexuality. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1158007. Advance online publication.
    PubMed


    Zaikman, Y., Vogel, E. A., Vicary, A. M., & Marks, M. J. (2016b). The influence of early experiences and adult attachment on the exhibition of the sexual double standard. Sexuality and Culture. doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9332-z.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    " Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality."

    this is one of my favorite things. I have been enjoying thinking about this for like 10 years. facial symmetry is the golden ratio. golden ratio is also on flowers and other things. golden ratio is known on buildings, like columns and windows.

    I challenge you to look at the symmetry of other faces in real life. ugly people have very bad faces. bad faces are unattractive.

    I recommend searching images for golden ratio.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886906000973
    Abstract

    Bilateral symmetry of physical traits is thought to reflect an individual’s phenotypic quality, especially their ability to resist environmental perturbations during development. Therefore, facial symmetry may signal the ability of an individual to cope with the challenges of their environment. Studies concerning the relationship between symmetry and attractiveness lead to the conclusion that preferences for symmetric faces may have some adaptive value. We hypothesized that if symmetry is indeed indicative of an individual’s overall quality, faces high in symmetry should receive higher ratings of attractiveness and health, but also be perceived as demonstrating certain positive personality attributes. College students’ attributions of a set of 20 female faces varying in facial symmetry were recorded. As predicted, faces high in symmetry received significantly higher ratings of attractiveness, health, and certain personality attributes (i.e., sociable, intelligent, lively, self-confident, balanced). Faces low in symmetry were rated as being more anxious. These differences were not caused by an attractiveness stereotype. The present results lend further support to the notions that (i) facial symmetry is perceived as being attractive, presumably reflecting health certification and (ii) people also consider facial symmetry as a cue to an individuals’ quality with regard to certain personality characteristics.
    edit:the other good thing about flowers is the Fibonacci Numbers.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    Quote Originally Posted by Revenge on the Herd View Post
    this paper takes a look at sexual mate preference over 37 countries..table 2 shows how inportant financial prospects are..and over the whole 37 countries this is greater for females than for males..this shows the hypergamy of women is worldwide..other tables show ambition..age, which shows that men look at younger mates..how good looking the partner is..and virginity..

    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/SexDifferencesinHuman.PDF


    here is a google scholar link:
    https://scholar.google.com/citations...J:a3BOlSfXSfwC

    http://philipperushton.net/wp-conten...nces-19891.pdf

    https://scholar.google.com/citations...AJ&hl=en&oi=ao

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    here is a new one to add to the pile:

    there was another post for smart women finding marriage. here is an article about smart women finding marriage. there has been a change over time. this is special, because i did not know the change was significant. (i mean there are a lot of college women.)

    Gender Asymmetry in Educational and Income Assortative Marriage
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...omf.12372/full
    Abstract

    The reversal of the gender gap in education has reshaped the U.S. marriage market. Drawing on data from the 1980 U.S. Census and the 2008–2012 American Community Surveys, the author used log-linear models to examine gender asymmetry in educational and income assortative mating among newlyweds. Between 1980 and 2008–2012, educational assortative mating reversed from a tendency for women to marry up to a tendency for women to marry down in education, whereas the tendency for women to marry men with higher incomes than themselves persisted. Moreover, in both time periods, the tendency for women to marry up in income was generally greater among couples in which the wife's education level equaled or surpassed that of the husband than among couples in which the wife was less educated than the husband. The author discusses the implications of the rising female advantage in education for gender change in heterosexual marriages.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    Testosterone is both a physical manifestation (muscles) and a personality characteristic ('PUA', 'alpha', dominant, and competitive).

    Similarly, estrogen and progesterone is both a physical manifestation (boobs and other feminine features) and a personality characteristic (motherly, submissive, and correlating to levels of serotonin).
    "We'll die, yes, die into the dust...Dusst!" - Smeagol

  8. #8
    Senior Member Eddie Willers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Canadian Prairies
    Posts
    619
    Reputation
    1787
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    Quote Originally Posted by wool.wizard View Post
    Testosterone is both a physical manifestation (muscles) and a personality characteristic ('PUA', 'alpha', dominant, and competitive).
    Ya know...this one has bugged me for along time. I hit puberty at around age 11, grew quickly, had lots of body hair and developed muscles and yet I was an absolute friendless, simping, introverted loser who never got to know his own worth until 20 years later. Mind, I was also from a dysfunctional home with an absent father and no male role models. This suggests, at least to me, that the testosterone-driven personality characteristics you mention can be completely suppressed by socio-cultural programming.
    A gun-toting, weed-smoking, gray-bearded redneck with a Masters - old and dangerous.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Willers View Post
    Ya know...this one has bugged me for along time. I hit puberty at around age 11, grew quickly, had lots of body hair and developed muscles and yet I was an absolute friendless, simping, introverted loser who never got to know his own worth until 20 years later. Mind, I was also from a dysfunctional home with an absent father and no male role models. This suggests, at least to me, that the testosterone-driven personality characteristics you mention can be completely suppressed by socio-cultural programming.
    There are different 'states' or conditions of male hormones. So, the variations may use the same hormone, such as androgen or testosterone, and cause unique effects according to their state. See the difference between "free testosterone" ("which is not attached to protein in the blood and therefore can actually travel into the tissues") and androgen with other testosterones or male hormones.
    Hormones and Unwanted Hair

    Free Testosterone is the more telling factor about what is bio-available for your body's tissues and organs to use. Some men feel perfectly fine at a testosterone baseline of 800 because their Free Testosterone level is relatively high, while others have all the symptoms of Low T at 800 because their Free Testosterone is low - each man's body chemistry is different.

    Free Testosterone Levels versus Total Testosterone Levels - Hormone Therapy Treatments for Low Testosterone @ www.TestosteroneTherapy.org | What are my T Levels?
    Most of the testosterone in the blood is bound to a protein called sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). Testosterone that is not bound ("free" testosterone) may be checked if a man or a woman is having sexual problems.

    Testosterone
    'Androgen' is a chemical class, and 'testosterone' is a "name".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_hormones

    In males, androgens stimulate sexual feelings...
    ...
    As androgen levels increase, more areas of the skin start to respond by showing hair growth.

    Hormones and Unwanted Hair
    edit:
    Another thing to learn is the time of hormone surges (during development), such as in womb, infancy, and adolescence.

    edit2:
    Male baldness is mother's father (maternal grandfather). What about (overall) testosterone levels? I heard baldness is related to high testosterone.
    Last edited by wool.wizard; June 18, 2017 at 9:54 PM. Reason: development, baldness
    "We'll die, yes, die into the dust...Dusst!" - Smeagol

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    817
    Reputation
    1345
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: human mate preferences over 37 countries

    Here is Colttaine's charts in a video. This is public data references. See attachments.

    I want to find the original Tinder data. Here is some data: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater...r-2ddf370a6e9a
    and here: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater...s-d44892e18f75
    Here is the Colttaine video reference: https://thechive.com/2014/11/19/stud...ups-10-photos/


    Here is OkCupid data: in a book, Dataclysm, and on a website: https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-loo...x-8715c0f1561e

    I want to find an infographic.

    Here is the Colttain video: Gender Attraction Differential
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vqRbScCIPU


    Here is a dating video for people and monkeys: Biology Culture Ideology
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wpca1ZDIRQ
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by wool.wizard; June 19, 2017 at 8:54 PM.
    "We'll die, yes, die into the dust...Dusst!" - Smeagol


Similar Threads

  1. Breakaway Human Society
    By Hobbitnutz in forum Random (Non-MGTOW subjects)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 7, 2016, 4:33 AM
  2. Countries where you can live for $1,000 a month
    By Coast Dog in forum For Ghosts
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: June 22, 2015, 6:01 PM
  3. A Real Human™
    By jagrmeister in forum Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 15, 2015, 4:24 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 9, 2014, 4:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •