High-flying men are not as attractive to women looking for love as those with an average job, scientists say.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the University of Central Lancashire research found the 186 female students asked preferred good-looking men.
But within that group, those without top careers were deemed most suitable, the Personality and Individual Differences journal reported.
The team said women seemed to feel high-flyers would not be good fathers.
Lead researcher Simon Chu said the high-earning career men were deemed to be "too good to be true".
"Under particular circumstances, high socio-economic status in males can be subtly counter-productive in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner.
"We suggest that females see physically attractive, high status males as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than a parenting strategy."
Using photographs of 60 men in their 20s, researchers asked students to rate them on a physical attractiveness scale.
Six from the good looking group, six considered average and six judged unattractive were then selected.
Profession
Alongside each photograph they added information on the man's age, what he was looking for in a partner and their profession.
The professions included high-status jobs such as architects and company directors, medium-status positions such as teachers or travel agents and so-called lower-status roles such as gardeners and postmen.
The researchers found that purely on looks, the best-looking men were assessed as the best partners.
But within this group, when professions were taken into account, those good-looking men with medium status jobs came out top.
Ingrid Collins, a consultant psychologist at the London Medical Centre, agreed potential parenting and providing skills were important.
"I think there will always be a pattern where women will take the lead in caring for the children.
"Because of this they will tend to go for someone who can look after and provide for their family."
MY COMMENT :
Well.. well... My girlfriend and I were talking abt the old familiar saying by some parents : "... Don't go for the best looking guy out there because you may have to sleep with you eyes open.."<:-D
Being superficial and shallow for a moment, just for the sake of this discussion; I have seen many instances, with the caveat that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, where in a couple, the woman is super fine and the guy is, well, not-so-fine. But the thing is he's loaded with money. Some may call the woman materialistic, which reminds me of that 'Simply Irresistable' song by Robert Palmer. There's a verse which fits perfectly here : "... she's so fine there's no telling where the money went.."
I guess this also may be the reason why I have met many guys who appear super confident because they have high-status, high-paying jobs. They are confident because they are also highly educated. I have observed that there is a higher tendency among males to think that what defines or makes them a man at a certain stage in their lives is what careers they have and how established their careers are. And for those women whose ultimate priority is to settle down rather than to find a good looking guy first and then to settle down with him, second; there is the answer. Though nowadays, many more women want someone who has both, good career and attractive looks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have been so busy, I neglect blogging for a while. Ucup told me about this article! :)
I told Ucup that the finding of this study have to be linked to the situation of the test study subjects. The article mentioned they're asking students. We need to know what income level these students come from. I think the biggest percentage of population in England is middle income level. So, if the study didn't filter the subjects, most of them will come from middle income.
I would say that people tend to marry within the same social status and income level. So there could be bias toward middle income because most of the subjects come from middle income level. The perception toward higher income level men maybe because the women do not have much experience dealing with high income men. Movies, however, provide the stereotypes that higher income men are players and middle income men are better at being a father with few exceptions.
Again, this is only assumption since I don't know how the researchers select their subjects :)
Or I could just be babbling since it's 2am now.
And to close my comment of:
Any sugar mama looking for a middle income man? :)
yeaaa... I miss your blogs, Mar! I hope you can write one soon!:D
I guess some higher income men are players because the women tolerate this behavior. This is true in real life and in the movies. Actually, all men can be players if women allow them to be. This is not to say there are no female players.
We are talking abt male players now. I think that women also need to take responsibilities and do our part in bringing up issues if we know that our man is 'playing around' and to stop allowing/tolerating this behavior to continue. It's not to dismiss the fact that the man is also responsible for having affairs. This needs to be identified first and then addressed. But we cannot place blame on the man completely if we are playing along (playing blind) in this charade and pretending that nothing is happening. We are playing an equally significant role in this game.
Some women tolerate affairs due to financial issues or that they have a concern to keep the family together.
With financial issues in which the woman wants her material goods or that she cannot work if she decides to leave the marriage union; then she has made a conscious choice to stay together. She thinks she may be better off sticking around than to leave him because she would not be able to take care of herself. It's not uncommon that I hear such stories and know some people who live such a lifestyle. As long as she is the primary wife, she does not mind staying in the marriage. Again, happiness, human dignity/self-worth/self-esteem are all top priorities in the US. In other countries, these are secondary needs because basic day-to-day survival comes first. How can you be happy and preserve your dignity when you have physically expired?? So, for some, the only way for them to survive and live is that they must compromise their happiness and dignity/self-worth. This then becomes a lifestyle.
With the women who want to keep their family together under the false pretenses, they end up with dysfunctional families and therefore, dysfunctional kids. But again in some countries it is absolutely better and important to put on a show for the rest of the world that 'my family is intact and happy' than to have a family that is no longer intact. And it's what they do best because growing up they've had a lifetime of practices of putting on a show for the society anyways. So they are just continuing the tradition of nurturing and supporting dysfunctional people over many generations. And of course, this is also lifestyle.
I am currently short in supplies of sugar mamas, but working on it!!<:-D
Post a Comment