Alter Männer, junge Frauen

Bei Slate regt sich eine Autorin darüber auf, dass so viele (reiche und berühmte) Männer junge Frauen haben.

Interessant ist ihre Begründung:

Older men who date much younger women make the transactional, hierarchical nature of romance explicit and reveal the extent to which men and women are still playing by very different rulebooks. In other areas of life, we gesture toward valuing things beyond the superficial. For most of us, in dating those things kind of go out the window, but then people tend to pair off with partners at about the same attractiveness level that they occupy. It all evens out. Except! Some older men have this secret other option, whereby they get to opt out of the system: When they acquire enough money or power, they can basically trade that capital for the thing women have that’s valued by society: youth and beauty. The pretense of finding someone who can be a partner and equal disappears; women both young and old get to see that all that really matters is how you look in a bikini. Meanwhile, women also watch their romantic options shrink as they age—a similar amount of money or power on their part usually doesn’t bring all the boys to the yard in quite the same way.

(…)

Still, more often than not, these pairings feel icky because they are icky: The parties aren’t on equal footing; different experiences and life stages are inevitably going to make it harder to relate. Attention from an older man might feel flattering, but do your future self a solid and ask: Why isn’t this guy interested in people his own age?

The personal is political. John Waters has said, “If you go home with somebody, and they don’t have books, don’t fuck ‘em!” Let’s revise that to add that if someone wants you to be the May to their December or vice versa, don’t let ‘em. In the end, this is no time to be a traitor to your generation. Instead, find someone your own age who’s even hotter. Get you a man you can talk about Pokémon Go with—or get you a woman you can talk about the Carter administration with.

In einem Teil ihrer grundlegenden Gedanken hat sie Recht: Frauen können Macht und Geld nicht in gleicher Weise in Attraktivität umsetzen wie Männer. Was sie nicht versteht: Männer können Jugend und Schönheit eben auch nicht in der Weise in Attraktivität umsetzen wie Frauen, dass sie sich damit den Zugang zu Macht und Geld verschaffen können.

Und natürlich blendet sie aus, dass Partnerwahlkriterien und die Frage, was wir einen hohen Wert aussuchen nicht Kriterien der Gerechtigkeit oder der Gleichheit unterliegt, sondern unserer Biologie: Eine Frau kann eben nur bis zu einem gewissen Alter Kinder bekommen und damit lohnt sich eine Selektion auf Jugend eher für Männer.

Ich hatte hier auch schon einmal aufgeführt, dass der Umstand, dass Männer auf vergleichsweise junge Frauen stehen (18-25) sogar in gewisser Weise als  Ausdruck einer „männlichen Romantik“ gesehen werden kann:

Nur mit jungen Frauen kann man noch lange eine Vielzahl von Kindern bekommen.

Gut, Frauen in dem Alter sind auch auf dem Höhepunkt ihrer Fruchtbarkeit, so dass auch die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass sie bei kurzfristigen Sex schwanger wird, steigt, aber der andere Grund klingt doch gleich viel freundlicher.
Dazu noch mal diese Grafik:

Unfruchtbarkeit Frau Alter

 Wie man sieht, ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass eine 20 unfruchtbar ist, bei 3% und die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass sie schwanger wird, sehr hoch.
Interessant ist, dass sie so deutlich anspricht, dass sie das ärgert, was bei intrasexueller Konkurrenz immer verständlich ist und dann als richtiges Verhalten ausgibt, dass die Partner „Gemeinsamkeiten“ haben und sich als gleichwertig ansehen. Das ein reicher mächtiger Mann eine schöne Frau als gleichwertig ansieht und sie ihn scheint merkwürdigerweise für sie ausgeschlossen, sie wertet indirekt die Frau zu etwas ab, was nur Sex ist. Bei den Gemeinsamkeiten sieht sie anscheinend eher eine Langzeitstrategie am Werk, was aus weiblicher Sicht eine gewisse Berechtigung hat: Aus seiner Sicht deckt die Beziehung eher noch den Rest seines Lebens ab als aus ihrer Sicht.

„Wenn er weniger verdient gibt es kein zweites Date“

Im „Express“ fand sich ein Artikel zu einer Umfrage einer Dating App:

Sixty per cent of the 2,000 women surveyed by London dating app The Inner Circle admitted refusing a second date with a guy – after finding he had a lower salary than them.

However men were less concerned with cash – as 96 per cent of them told researchers they were not bothered if they female date was a bigger earning high-flyer.

Den Originalartikel der Datingseite konnte ich leider nicht finden. Zudem heißt es in dem Artikel:

When it comes to going Dutch, 75 per cent of women admitted offering to pay towards a first date meal. But only half of men looking for love said they expected the offer to split the expense from their female date. And men that do suggest ‚going halves‘ may be doing it at their own risk, the independent research uncovered. As 41 per cent of women admitted they would definitely refuse a second date with a man if he „expected them“ to also chip in for the restaurant bill.

David Vermeulen, the founder of The Inner Circle – an invitation-only dating site – said: „The moment the bill arrives on a first date can always be a very tricky situation.

„I may be from the Netherlands, but I would never ‚go dutch‘ on a date. It’s just not the done thing where I am from.

Going dutch“ bedeutet, dass jeder für sich selber zahlt

Da hätten wir also:

  • 60% der befragten Frauen würden nicht mit einem Mann auf ein zweites Date gehen, wenn er weniger verdient als sie
  • 75% der Frauen würden bei einem ersten Date anbieten zu zahlen, 50% der Männer würden das auch erwarten, 41% der Frauen würden nicht auf ein zweites Date gehen, wenn er erwarten würde, dass sie auch etwas zahlt.

Das sind schon recht hohe Zahlen, die Frage wäre natürlich, wie repräsentativ sie sind.

Das konnte ich über die Dating App herausfinden:

The Inner Circle is a selective dating app that connects ambitious, like-minded people.

The Inner Circle started in 2013 as a response to a real life problem we faced when searching for a date. As entertaining as it can be to go through endless profiles, swiping left or right aimlessly, the reality is that the majority of profiles and matches are random and unappealing. It doesn’t represent what we are truly searching for. We decided therefore that quality matters, not quantity.

We found that singles with similar backgrounds and interests are more likely to hit it off. To ensure real people are able to meet like-minded singles, we personally curate and approve each member. This ensures that compatibility and mutual interests prevail. Does this take time? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely!

That we’re not your next typical dating app is shown through our exclusive events we host around the world on a monthly basis. In the most sought after locations, we bring online dating to the offline, ensuing that your matches are real, genuine and brought to life.

We’re proud to have created a unique platform that ensures the right people are introduced to each other. So far thousands of members have been successfully matched, and we are just getting started. Get ready to be amazed

Klingt etwas nach einer Dating App für Reich und schön oder zumindest „besser situiert“. Insofern wäre die Frage, ob da die Frauen nicht gerade entsprechend selektiert sind, eben solche, die einen ambitionierten, besser gestellten Mann haben wollen. Das würde die Umfrageergebnisse insofern nicht repräsentativ machen. Dennoch würde immerhin ein deutlicher Geschlechterunterschied übrig bleiben.

 

„Das was sie verdient, ist ihr Geld. Das was du verdienst, ist euer Geld“

Matze schrieb in einem Kommentar eine alte Formel, die man immer wieder hört und die wohl gerne praktiziert wird

„Das was sie verdient, ist ihr Geld. Das was du verdienst, ist euer Geld“

Ich könnte wetten, dass ich das schon irgendwo mal im Blog als Thema hatte, aber ich finde es gerade nicht. Aber es schadet ja auch nicht, es noch mal zu besprechen.

Es kommt denke ich insbesondere dann vor, wenn der Mann deutlich mehr verdient und sie zB eine Teilzeitarbeit in Steuerklasse V hat. Dann gehen von seinem Konto die Miete/Abzahlung für das Haus und alle anderen Nebenkosten sowie sonstige normale Ausgaben runter und ihr Verdienst ist etwas ausgeklammert.

Interssiert mich aber schon, warum dieses Modell so beliebt ist und da nicht gesagt wird, dass das dann eben auch aufs gemeinsame Konto soll. Ist es die Frau, die da einfach etwas mehr Freiheit will (und so das Gefühl hat,  nicht für jeden Einkauf Rechenschaft ablegen zu müssen, weil sie ja weniger verdient und sich im Rahmen dieses kleineren Betrages dann auch eher mal einen gewissen Luxus leisten zu können?). Wird es hingenommen, weil der Betrag eh relativ gering ist und man deswegen keinen Streit anfangen will? Ist es gut für den Familienfrieden, weil man so Freiräume lässt? Gefallen sich vielleicht auch einige Männer darin, ihr diesen Betrag zu lassen und der Versorger zu sein? Und wie häufig ist dieses Modell eigentlich?

Weibliche Partnerwahlkriterien

Auf dem immer wieder einen Besuch werten Blog von Erwin Schmidt findet sich eine interessante Passage zu weiblichen Partnerwahlkriterien auf dem BuchMale, Female“ von David Geary:

 

Because preferences cannot always put into practice, a woman’s preferred marriage partner and her actual marriage partner are not typically the same. Social psychological studies of explicit and implicit preferences – for instance, preference for an attractive face without conscious awareness of why it is attractive – are thus an important adjunct to research on actual marriage choices. These preferences are less constrained by the competing interests of other people and capture the processes associated with the social and psychological mechanisms that can influence reproductive decisions and behaviors (Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990). Preferences can nevertheless be influenced by social and sexual dynamics in the local community (Kenrick, N. P. Li, & Butner, 2003), by wider economic and social conditions, and by the individual woman’s attractiveness as a mate; attractive women demand more from their mates (Pawlowski & Jasienska, 2008). To complicate matters further, not all preferences are equal; some are necessities and others are luxuries (N. P. Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). To examine this further, I begin with a discussion of the sex difference in preference for a culturally successful mate and then turn to mate-choice trade-offs and wider influences.

Culturally Successful Men. Women throughout the world indicate that men’s cultural success or attributes that are likely to lead to success (e.g. ambition) are necessities when it comes to their preferred marriage partners (D. M. Buss, 1989; N. P. Li et al., 2002). One of the largest studies ever conducted on women’s and men’s preferences included more than 10,000 people in 37 cultures across six continents and five islands (D. M. Buss, 1989). Women rated „good financial prospect“ higher than did men in all cultures. … The magnitude of the sex difference was smallest in Eastern Europe, but even here two out of three women rated good financial prospect as more important in a prospective marriage partner than did the average man. For the remaining regions of the world, from three out of four to five out of six women rated good financial prospect more highly than did the average man. In 29 samples, the „ambition and industriousness“ of a prospective mate were more important for women than for men , presumably because these traits are indicators of his ability to eventually achieve cultural success. In only one sample were men’s ratings significantly higher than those of women, the Zulu of South Africa; this may reflect the high level of physical labor (e.g., house building) expected of Zulu women.

Hatfield and Sprecher (1995) found the same pattern for college students in the United States, Japan, and Russia. In each of this nations, women valued a prospective mate’s potential for success, earnings, status, and social position more highly than did men. A meta-analysis of research published from 1965 to 1986 revealed the same sex difference (Feingold, 1992). Across studies, three out of four women rated socioeconomic status as more important in a prospective marriage partner than did the average man. Studies conducted prior to 1965 showed the same pattern (e.g., Hill, 1945), as did a survey of a nationally representative sample of unmarried adults in the United States (Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994). Across age, ethnic status, and socioeconomic status, women preferred husbands who were better educated than they were and who earned more money than they did. Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, and Kenrick (2002) found the same pattern for women ranging in age from 20s to 60s.

Women’s preference for culturally successful men is also found in studies of singles ads and popular fiction novels. In a study of 1,000 „lonely hearts“ ads, Greenlees and McGrew (1994) found that British women were 3 times more likely than British men to seek financial security in a prospective marriage partner. Oda (2001) found that Japanese women were 31 times more likely than Japanese men to seek financial security and social status in a long-term partner. Muslim women sought educated and financially secure partners who were tall, emotionally sincere, and socially skilled (Badahdah & Tiemann, 2005). Young women (younger than 40 years) in Spain wanted both financial success and physical attractiveness in a prospective mate (Gil-Burmann, Pelaez, & Sanchez, 2002); older women retained their desire for financial success but valued physical attractiveness less highly than did younger women. Whissell (1996) found the same themes across 25 contemporary romance novels and 6 classic novels that have traditionally appealed to women more than men, including two stories of the Old Testament written about 3,000 years ago. In these stories, the male protagonist is almost always an older, socially dominant, and wealthy man who ultimately marries the woman.

As in traditional societies, marriage to a culturally successful man can have reproductive consequences for a woman in modern societies. Bereczkei and Csanaky (1996) studied more than 1,800 Hungarian men and women who were 35 years of age or older and thus not likely to have more children. They found that women who had married men who were older and better educated than themselves had, on average, more children, were less likely to get divorced, and reported higher levels of marital satisfaction than did women who married younger and / or less educated men.

Trade-Offs. Women’s preference for culturally successful partner is highlighted when they must make cost-benefit trade-offs between a partner’s cultural success versus other important traits, such as physical attractiveness (N. P. Li, 2007; N. P. Li et al., 2002). When their „mate dollars“, so to speak, are limited, women spend more of them on the social status and resources of a long-term partner than on other traits. When they have additional mate dollars, they spend proportionally less on status and resources and more on the peronality traits of this mate (e.g., his friendliness). … Unmarried women on a tight budget allocate more mate dollars to the resources or social standing of a prospective mate than do men, but the magnitude of the sex difference declines as budgets becomes flush. In yet another study, college women reported the minimally acceptable earning potential of a prospective husband was the 70th percentile; on the basis of earning potential alone, 70% of men were eliminated from the pool of potential marriage partners. The corresponding figure for college men was the 40th percentile (Kenrick et al., 1990).

Once a prospective mate has achieved the minimal social standing, additional resources and status yield dimishing results. Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, and Stone (2001) found that desirability of man as marriage partner increased sharply as his income rose from low- to an upper-middle-class level (about 100,000$) and then leveled off. An increase in a man’s income from $ 25,000 to $ 75,000 per year resulted in a substantial increase in his desirability, but increasing his income from $ 100,000 per year to $ 300,000 per year had little effect.

Es sind also sozialer Status und Ressourcen, die jeweils die weibliche Partnerwahl beeinflussen, wobei Zugang zu Ressourcen (=Geld) natürlich üblicherweise auch einen höheren Status bedingen. Allerdings machen sich diese Effekte insbesondere bemerkbar beim Unterschied zwischen niedrigen Einkommen und mittleren Einkommen. Bei höherem Einkommen hingegen nahm die Attraktivität nicht mehr stark zu (letzeres insbesondere im Widerspruch zur radikalmaskulistischen Ausbeuterthese)