Men really are beasts....

Potential Partner Selectiveness in Men Based on Desire to Reproduce

Shakespeare might have pondered, “To have or not to have: that is the question?” And the matter being pondered would be whether or not to have children. But back in his time, deciding whether or not to reproduce would have been left up to chance rather than a conscious decision. Fast forward several centuries and the decision to raise children is quite a debate among singles and couples alike. With readily available contraceptive devices, access to abortion, advanced career opportunities (for men and women), it is much easier in today’s world for people to become one of the ever increasing “voluntary childless” (Weston & Qu, 2001) or on the other hand have children on their own timeline.

The decision to become one of the voluntary childless stems from a number of factors which include, but are not limited to: concerns about aging, being without a current partner, having attention focused solely on career, beliefs that the world is not an optimal place for children to grow up anymore, a dislike for children, discouragement in their own abilities to raise children, economic reasons, and worries about the loss of freedom child-rearing would incur (Weston & Qu, 2001). Interestingly enough these notions which encourage a person to become one of the voluntary childless might stem from high levels of education, a high status position which includes a high income, and the less religious (Callan, 1983). Therefore, the implication is that the better educated one is the more alternative options they will know are available to them whether that concerns birth control options or knowing that better career options are available to them without children. The religious aspect of becoming voluntary childless is that there is no religious pressure to reproduce and no restrictions on the birth control methods one may entertain (Callan, 1983; Weston & Qu, 2001).

On the other side, deciding to have children is no less weighted with heavy options. The same problems the voluntary childless encounter are also encountered when people volunteer to become parents. It is just that voluntary parents decide the benefits of having children out weigh the benefits of not having children. Commonly cited benefits during a cost/benefit analysis of having children are a desire for love and affection, the fact that they love children, emotional fulfillment, and life satisfaction (Callan, 1983; Grewal & Urschel, 1994). Those who are voluntary parents see child rearing as a demanding yet rewarding venture. Furthermore, those who feel they are up to the task receive their satisfaction and build self-esteem for themselves through being a parent. Not everyone will receive satisfaction from parenting, but those who are voluntary parents seem to receive more satisfaction because they have waited for children to come at the right phase in their life (Soriano, Weston, Violet, & Kolar, 2001).

After pondering the question, “To have or not to have?” an individual then makes up his of her mind to volunteer or decline the task of child rearing. Although, Schreck concludes that childbearing intentions are rarely steadfast (1999), at least seven percent of the respondents in his work stayed consistent over a period of six years. Focusing on the different roles men and women take as parents, it is noted that the amount of time fathers spend with their children increases with the child’s age. This is in part because fathers are more often “playmates” of children where mothers take care of primarily physiological and emotional needs (Lips, 2005). The time that both parents spend on the job and in career related endeavors is inversely related to the amount of time they spend with their offspring. With men being the traditional primary breadwinners, it is no surprise that fathers end up as “playmates” and mothers as lifelines to the children (Kiger & Riley, 1996; Schreck, 1999).

When a man chooses to give up his own personal playtime to become a “playmate” to a child, the reasons for this are extremely varied. However, according to evolutionary theory all men should want to have children because it is a central aspiration to spread your genes into the next generation. Therefore reproducing would always be the most beneficial choice in choosing whether to have children even in today’s world where that ability to choose is so extremely available. One would assume that the men who have already decided to have children would be pursing a long-term sexual strategy and would therefore be more selective in the dating process about which women they would mate with. On the other side of these assumptions, men pursuing a short-term sexual strategy would be less selective in the dating process because they would not be concerned about a woman’s potential ability to reproduce and in what type of offspring she/they might produce because of their union (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Another assumption taken from the parameters of long-term mating is that the male and female will mate for life and will ultimately raise offspring and become partners in this endeavor (Schmitt, Shackelford, & Buss, 2001). Taking into account these theories and assuming when men have decided to answer the question of whether to have children with the answer of have, then it can be decided that these men would be more selective in the dating process than those men who answer the question with a have not.

This selectiveness in a mate comes from a man deciding to have a high parental investment in his child and family. High parental investment includes being there for the child emotionally, physically, and monetarily (Buss, 1993). It boils down to a man making sure his investment is worthwhile by being selective about his future mate. Age range, distance, height, body type, smoking, drinking, ethnicity, faith, education, income, and prior relationships of the woman of interest would be of great concern to the man wanting to find a woman to mate with long-term.
To begin, men interested in having children should be more selective about the age range of their potential partner. According to Buss, the prime age range is somewhere around the age of 24 because this is when a woman is at her highest reproductive value. Any age range that is younger or older than this age decreases the reproductive value of females. Since a man is reproductively fertile at any age, his reproductive value stays the same throughout his life with his health factors held constant (1993). However, without pin pointing a single age that men are looking for, in general men date women the same age or younger than them. Men also are increasingly beginning to prefer older women who are well past reproductive value (Davis, 1998). The implications of this finding suggest that men who do want children will stick within the age range of fertile women and those men who choose to be voluntary childless will place less age restrictions on a partner.
Secondly, distance is a factor worthy of the potential male parent to consider. Men not looking to reproduce would be less selective about the distance to which they might have to travel in order to “hook-up” with a potential mate. It is understandable that most people end up mating with people in close proximity to them (Buss, 1993), but this theory might be somewhat outdated with the cyber world and American’s mobility opening up a completely new dating pool. Millions of potential matches can be conjured up in a matter of seconds and a prospect can be examined at length within 10 minutes, maybe even contacted in that same amount of time. It has also been shown by Houran that people with a sincere interest (those interested in long-term mating) in finding a partner through online dating can realistically find good matches (2004). Obviously this pool of millions is going to be spread all over the world, but those seriously looking for mates should be more selective and want to search for a pool within a certain amount of distance from themselves because absence has been proven not to make the heart grow fonder (Knox, Zusman, Daniels, & Brantley, 2002). The separation put in place by a long distance relationship made the efforts to stay together nearly impossible, with one out of five relationships dissolving and those who had been involved in a previous long distance relationship admitting they were very reluctant to try another one (Knox, et al., 2002).
Therefore, we have decided men who want to have children should be selective about the distance they are willing to travel for a potential mate, and most interestingly, these men should be interested and very selective about the attractiveness of their mate. Attractiveness has long been a sign of fertility and men interested in a fertile woman should be interested in her attractiveness because attractiveness signifies a healthy person (Buss, 1993). Body type and height are good predictors of health. A standard measure of healthy body type is a ratio of height to weight and known as the Body Mass Index (BMI), (NHBLI, 2004). Since people enjoy dating those similar to them, having a similar body type to a potential partner would increase the likelihood that a long-term dating event could work out and lead to reproduction (Buss, 1993; Bailey & Chorosevic, 1980). Using the evidence it is predicted that men who wish to have children would be more selective about the body type and height range of their potential partner. Having a partner with a body type and height similar to your own can help build self-esteem for both parties and add an extra dimension of attraction between the two parties which would lead to more long-term investment (Bailey & Chorosevic, 1980). A healthy partner aside from a healthy BMI would include a partner who was a non-smoker, and a non-drinker to a moderate drinker (NHBLI, 2004).

Another aspect that men wanting children would be expected to be more selective about would be the race of their partner, but in this particular instance, their selectivity may hurt their chances to reproduce. Attitudes toward interracial dating are met with an array of emotions. Many now feel it is politically incorrect to exclude all races other than your own from your dating pool however, it does often still happen. However, if men are seriously looking for someone to settle down with they should be less selective about the race of their partner (Todd, McKinney, Harris, Chadderton, & Small, 1992). After further investigation, Todd et al. concluded that when concerning the topic of interracial dating men, the young, and Caucasians were more positive. Furthermore, a larger percent of young and old African-American and Caucasian men stated that they would date outside their own race rather than stating that they would not (Todd, et al., 1992). This proves that when concerned with ethnicity of a potential mate men might not be as selective about dating other races, but men interested in more than just dating might be a tad more selective about which races they are willing to date when children are involved because of social relations and issues concerning biracial children (Allen,
1976).

Religion plays a central role in many people’s lives and most are looking to share that religious involvement and similar beliefs with their partner. This relates to the belief that similarity is crucial to mate selection (Argyle, 2000; Buss, 1985). Someone with a high level of religious involvement would be more likely to want to have children and therefore be more selective of a mate because they would want the mate to have a religious background like their own. Furthermore, Bailey & Garrou concluded that in a potential mate religious involvement is seen as highly desirable (1983). The religious person is seen as “more intelligent, more physically attractive, better adjusted, less selfish, more trustworthy, and more attractive” (Bailey & Garrou, 1983, p. 99). The implication here is that a religious man will be more selective about partner selection and more likely to want children. (Callan, 1983).

Referring back to education and its implications in childbearing decisions, people who comprise the growing number of voluntary childless are better educated and earn higher incomes than those who choose to have children (Magarick, 1975; Nason & Paloma, 1975; Houseknecht, 1979). Since the 1950’s many gender roles have changed and that change is most apparently seen within women (Lips, 2005). However, both males and females have shown more interest in having better educated and more intelligent mates. In 1977, men already were beginning to desire women with an education (Hoyt & Hudson, 1981). The assumption is that more education means more income. Going along with that assumption proves that both males and females are seeking mates with a good financial background (Buss, et al., 2001). Education and income go hand in hand here and it can be expected that men desiring children will be more selective about the income and education levels of their potential mate.

Lastly comes the question of whether or not people’s past relationships interfere with their child-bearing decisions. And it seems that past relationships do matter. Many new relationships in which one of the partners already has children tend to end up becoming childless relationships for the new couple. This factor seems to remain constant whether or not the new relationship with child stems from a divorce or widowing or a single parenthood situation (Weston & Qu, 2001). Past relationships would also seem to be a factor when looking into evolutionary dating theories. The long-term mating theory involves the implication that a man is there to provide resources for the woman and her offspring. Therefore, either way, a man with children already will have more people to divide his resources among and a woman with children will expect to have more resources sent her way (Buss, 1993). For the reasons listed above this current research only involves those who are childless at this point in time and either intend or do not intend to become parents.

In summary, men who are interested in investing time, energy, and financial backing into a long-term mating arrangement and having children within this arrangement will be more selective about their potential partner. Age range, distance, height, body type, smoking, drinking, ethnicity, faith, education, income, and prior relationships will be the factors in which a man will look into more closely before deciding upon a particular partner. This research should further enhance our understanding of the difference between men who want children and men who do not want children and what implications this has for women and dating.

Method

Participants

Two hundred heterosexual male participants were obtained through the online dating service Match.com, located at www.match.com. They were selected randomly using the following parameters: All participants were located within the United States and did not currently have any children. One hundred participants were found using the location and parental parameters listed above but were selected on the basis that they wanted to have children. The other 100 participants were obtained by using the same location and parental parameters but were selected on the basis that they do not want to have children. The age restrictions for searching were ages 18-120 years. This resulted in a male participant pool with an age range of 18-76 years.



Materials

A membership to Match.com, an online dating service, was needed in order to draw participants into the participant pool. A United States Census Bureau map was needed in order to have the States divided appropriately into region. (Appendix A)

Procedure

The researchers obtained free memberships to Match.com. After all participants were located within the online database within the parameters stated above, the demographic information about the participant was taken from the “Basics” category. Demographic information included was age, location by region, and race. Location was determined by regions within the United States as described by the U.S. Census Bureau. These regions consisted of Midwest, Northeast, South and West (Appendix A). Information also taken from the “Basics” category was the distance the male was willing to travel for a potential mate. Most participants stated a certain distance; however, when the participant stated they would date statewide the distance was entered as 250 miles. Additionally, when the participant stated they would date nationwide the distance was entered as 3000 miles.
The main focus was on the “About My Date” category. This is where the participant stated what he was looking for in a potential mate, as well as whether he would like to have children or not. This information taken from the “About My Date” category was then used as the measure of selectiveness. The data was then divided into the following relevant sub-categories out of the “About My Date” category: Age Range willing to date (years), Height Range willing to date (inches), Body Type willing to date, Ethnicity willing to date, Faith willing to date, Education willing to date, Income willing to date, Smoker (yes/no), Type of Drinker willing to date, and Past Relationships willing to date. The Age Range sub-category equaled the oldest age the participant was willing to date minus the youngest age the participant was willing to date in years. The Height Range sub-category was done similarly by subtracting the shortest height the participant was willing to date from the tallest height the participant was willing to date in inches. The remaining sub-categories are explained as follows. The Body Type willing to date sub-category included the following 10 available responses: slender, athletic and toned, about average, a few extra pounds, big and beautiful, full-figured, curvy, stocky, heavyset, and other. The Ethnicity sub-category willing to date consisted of the following nine responses: Asian, Black/African descent, East Indian, Latino/Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American, Pacific Islander, White/Caucasian, and Other. (As a side note here, if the participant considered himself multi-racial he was coded as being in the “Other” category). The Faith willing to date sub-category included the following 12 choices: Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist/Taoist, Christian/Catholic, Christian/LDS, Christian/Protestant, Christian/Other, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim/Islam, Spiritual but not religious, and Other. The Education willing to date category included a possible seven responses: High school, Some college, Associates degree, Bachelors degree, Graduate degree, PhD/ Post Doctoral, and the School of life. The Income willing to date sub-category consisted of the following seven responses: Less than $25,000, $25,001-$35,000, $35,001-$50,000, $50,001-$75,000, $75,001-$100,000, $100,001-$150,000, and $150,001+. The Type of Drinker willing to drink sub-category had a possible four responses consisting of: Gave it up, Non-alcoholic beverages only, Social drinker-maybe one or two, and Regularly. The last sub-category was Past Relationships willing to date and this consisted of a possible six responses: Committed relationships but never married, Several committed relationships-but now single, Never been in a committed relationship, Currently separated, Divorced, and Widowed. For all of these sub-categories there were a maximum allowable number of responses from the participant. If the participant response to any particular sub-category was “Any” then the participant was assumed to be unselective in that sub-category and would then receive a number equaling the maximum number of allowable responses.

The Smoker sub-category was answered a little differently. This sub-category was coded with a simple yes/no. The available responses in the Smoker sub-category consisted of: No way, Occasionally, Cigar aficionado, Smokeless tobacco, Daily, Trying to quit. A yes response was given to those men who responded with “Any” and to those who selected several different responses in the category. A no response was only appropriate to those who responded that they wanted no smoking.

Results

The majority of the data were analyzed using 13 one-tailed independent samples t-tests. Unequal N’s were found across analyses due to participants not answering certain information in their Match.com profiles. Whether or not men wanted children was affected by the age of the male, t (198) =-10.89, p < .05. Men who wanted children were younger (M=29.46, SEM=.48) and the men who did not want children were older (M=44.03, SEM=1.25). Men who wanted children were more selective about the age range of women they were willing to date (M=12.71, SEM=1.06) than men who did not want children (M=15.28, SEM=.76). Men who wanted children tended to be more selective about their potential partner’s body type t (198) =1.8,
p =.073. Although not entirely significant men who wanted children tended to be less selective about a potential partner’s body type (M=4.77, SEM=.30) and men who did not want children tended to be more selective about a potential partner’s body type (M=4.03, SEM=.28). The distance, height range, ethnicity, faith, education, income, smoking habits, and drinking style of a potential partner did not prove to be categories in which men who wanted children were more selective than those who did not with the results proving to be non significant. The other two data sets were analyzed using a 2X7 (preference for children X race of male) chi-square. While the location of the male proved to be non significant in determining a man’s selectiveness, the race of the male had an effect on his desire to reproduce chi-square (6, N=200) =27.52, p<.05, with 14 percent variability in common. One hundred percent of Asians (n=3) expressed a desire to want children, 81.80 percent of Black/African Descent (n=11), 50.00 percent of East Indians (n=2), 75.00 percent of Latino/Hispanics (n=16), 100.00 percent of Middle Easterns (n=1), 39.00 of White/Caucasians (n=146), and 81.00 percent of Other/Mixed (n=21) wanted children.
Discussion

It was predicted that men who wanted children would be more selective about a potential mate, however, when broken down into categories only several factors seem to warrant more selectiveness and those factors were age and race of the male, age range of the mate. Interestingly, a marginal finding showed that men desiring children were actually less selective about a potential mate’s body type. Although the results were not entirely conclusive some interesting conclusions have been derived and opened the door for further research.

Men wanting children tended to be younger. This can be in part due to the fact that most men wanted to date someone close to their age and that would put the woman being younger also and closer to reproductive value. As far as older men not wanting children this can be due to the demands of child rearing and that can these older men simply are not up to the grueling task anymore. This is relevant to the research by Weston & Qu which concludes that one of the major factors which leads a person to be voluntary childless is concerns about aging (2001).
Along these same lines men wanting children were found to want a mate within a tighter age range. This is congruent with the evidence that points to the fact that men tend to date women in which are their age or younger (Davis, 1998). The men wanting children in this study wanted a mean age range of 12 years. Although this age range is a little wide compared to what Buss would have said (1993), this is due to a major fault of this study. It might have been more conclusive and reasonable to compare the men’s age to the actual age ranges that they were willing to date. The fault was taking the subtracting the ages and lumping it into a range instead of setting a high age willing to date and a low age willing to date. Interesting results might come from studying the actual age range and comparison to wanting children or not.

Against the hypothesis that men would be more selective about a potential mate’s body type, the results showed that men who wanted children were actually less selective. This could be for a variety of reasons, but most importantly it is probably because the man did not want to seem vain or aim too high in his online dating pursuits. These results could have also derived from a man simply not wanting to shut healthy women out of his dating pool. If he had described the waif like model type as all he would want to date, then he should know that most women are not like that in reality. Women who are too skinny have difficulty during pregnancy. This would fit with reproductive value research because the man wants a reproductively healthy woman and that includes a woman with some meat on her bones.
The most interesting finding however was that White/Caucasian men wanted children less than all of the other races did combined. Although the sample was majority White/Caucasian, these men were more likely to not want children. Further investigation into this topic would be very interesting.

With the distance, height range, ethnicity, faith, education, income, smoking habits, and drinking style of the potential partners for the males in this study coming up inconclusive, it might be due to the fact that since online dating covers such a broad range of people, the men might not want to narrow their visibility by being too selective about these topics. The outcome of narrowing their visibility to the dating pool might be worse and the men might feel that revealing this information is too personal.

In conclusion, the findings of this study reveal that deciding whether or not to have children is an intricate process. This study also shows that selectiveness in a potential partner varies a great deal based on a man’s desire to become a parent or not. The limitations of this study were a small sample size compared to the available data, the amount of selectiveness already allowed in online dating, and the lack of previous research in and about online dating.


References

Allen, B.P. (1976). Race and physical attractiveness as criteria for white subjects’ dating choices. Social and Behavior Personality, 4 92), 289-296.

Argyle, M. (2000). The effect of personality. In Psychology and Religion An Introduction (chap 3, pp.30-46). New York: Routledge.

Bailey, R.C. & Chorosevic. (1980). Congruency and accuracy of body build perceptions in dating couples. Social Behavior and Personality, 8 (1), 113-115.

Bailey, R.C. & Garrou, D.G. (1983). Dating availability and religious involvement as influences on interpersonal attraction. The Journal of Psychology, 113, 95-100.

Buss, D.M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.

Buss, D.M. & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating, Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Buss, D.M., Shackelford, T.K., Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Larsen, R. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: the cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 63 (2), 491-492.

Callan, V. (1983). Childlessness and Partner Selection. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 181-186. Retrieved March 22, 2005 from PSYCHinfo database.

Davis, A. (1998). Age differences in dating and marriage: Reproductive strategies or social preferences. Current Anthropology, 39 (3), 374-380. Retrieved March 31, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database.

Grewal, R.P. & Urschel, J.D. (1994). Why women want children: a study during phases of parenthood. Journal of Social Psychology, 134 (4), 453-455. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database.

Houran, J. & Lange, R. (2004). Expectations of finding a “soul mate” with online dating. North American Journal of Psychology, 6 (2), 297-308.

Housknecht, S.K. (1979).Childlessness and marital adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 259-265.

Hoyt, L.L. & Hudson, J.W. (1981). Personal characteristics important in mate preference among college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 9 (1), 93-96.

Knox. D., Zusman, M., Daniels, V., & Brantley, A. (2002). Absence makes the heart grow fonder?: Long distance dating relationships among college students. College Student Journal, 36 (3), 364-366. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.

Lips, H.M. (2005). Sex & Gender: An Introduction. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Magarick, R. (1975). Social and emotional aspects of voluntary childlessness in vasectomized childless men. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Nason, E.M. & Paloma, M.M. (1975). Voluntary Childless Couples: The Emergence of a Variant Life Style. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2004). Calculate Your Body Mass Index. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm

Schreck, L. (1999). Men and women have similar fertility intentions, and many of reproductive age postpone childbearing. Family Planning Perspectives, 31 (5), 254-255. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from Sociological Collection database.

Schmitt, D.P., Shackelford, T.K., & Buss, D.M. (2001). Are men really more “oriented” toward short-term dating than women?, Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 3 (3), 211-238. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database.

Soriano, G., Weston, R., Violet, & Kolar (2001). Meeting the challenges of parenting. Family Matters, (58), 38-45. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from Sociological Collection database.

Todd, J., McKinney, J.L., Harris, R., Chadderton, R., & Small, L. (1992). Attitudes toward interracial dating: Effects of age, sex, and race. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 20 (4), 202-208.

Weston, R. & Qu, L. (2001). Men’s and women’s reasons for not having children. Family Matters, (58), 10-15. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from Sociological Collection database.