Helen

The Washington Post recently proclaimed that “The US is in a Crisis of Love.”  Many Americans agree—currently regarding America’s singles as commitment-phobes who are retreating to their bedroom computers to duck romance and attachment.  Really?  I and my colleagues at Match wanted to see if this was true.  So in our 9^th annual survey, known as Singles in America, we polled a representative sample of 5,000+ adult singles of all ages, backgrounds, sexual orientations and regions of the country to get to the real scoop.

Indeed, it’s fake news: 60% of singles report that they seek romance; and 71% want to make a life together–while only 9% want to “date casually.”

Today’s singles are being smart about love too.   Some 40% say they first want to build self-acceptance—a good component of a healthy partnership. And one out of three want to get their finances in order before cupid strikes.  Moreover, more than half of young singles have created a dating profile on a dating site or app.  But rather than just looking at photos, then carelessly pursuing “him” or “her,” 68% say they assiduously assess a potential partner’s profile.  Few are willing to spend their precious time, money and energy pursuing a romantic dead end for very long either.  Instead, after about four months of dating someone, many launch the DTR conversation: “Where are we headed?”  And tktk% depart if the relationship is heading nowhere. 

But today’s singles are slow and careful.  They don’t want to “catch feelings” until they are ready—thus fueling an impressive new social trend, what I call “Slow Love.”  Some 70% cautiously begin a partnership as “just friends.”  Then they slowly become friends-with-Benefits to see if they are compatible between the sheets—another important part of most relationships.  Even later, they inform friends and kin of their budding relationship and embark on an “official first date.”  And only after a long stretch of living together, do they wed–often some six years after meeting.  Where marriage used to be the beginning of a partnership, today it’s the finale.  

I’m impressed—because academic data clearly show that the longer you court and the later you wed, the more likely your marriage will last. Surely, courtship is changing with changing times.  But love is not dead.  It’s a primordial brain system that will endure as long as we survive as a species.  And today’s singles—particularly our young—are taking love seriously and proceeding with elegant sanity.  Bravo to them.    

Happy Easter, if you are Christian.  Happy spring weekend to the rest of you.  I have just returned from the jungle highlands of New Guinea where Christianity has taken hold among people who still sleep in thatched huts around an open fire, on leaves.  No pillows.  No blankets.  No stoves.  No electricity.  No running water.  No TVs or radios.  Almost no one wears shoes, not even flip-flops.  And they still hunt—and war—with bows and arrows; (far better, they say, than guns.) But beyond these hamlets, beyond their sweet potato gardens, beyond the fields where their pigs wander to forage, nestled among the jungle trees stands the bare tin walls of the local Christian church.  And on Easter Sunday, many will assemble to follow the same rituals as those in the cathedrals of the world.  

But will our partner join us on this holy day?  For the past three years, Match.com and I have been asking singles in America many questions. Among them, how important it is that a potential mate “belongs to the same religion?”   Every year, I am stunned by the response.  In 2012, 71% of men and 60% of women reported that it was “not very important” or “not at all important” to have a partner of the same faith.   Even more regarded this as unimportant in 2011 and 2010.   Moreover, when asked how likely singles were to consider getting into a serious relationship with someone “with a different religious background,” an overwhelming 68% of men and 61% of women in 2012 regarded this as “very likely” or “somewhat likely.”  And these percentages were similar in 2011 and 2010.  

What do you make of this?   To me, it appears as if we are turning inward with our religious and spiritual beliefs.   We are still a pious society; indeed, many who are not members of a formal church are “spiritual” instead.  But for centuries the Christian church has been at the center of Western social life.   One was expected to marry within one’s faith.  The church provided not only creed, but community–the social networks that guided daily life.  Today we build these social networks on the Internet, in our leisure activities, and at work instead.   

Is this good… or bad?  I’m not in the good-bad business.  But as an anthropologist, I find it interesting that American singles now seek something different in a mate.  Over 90% say they “must have” or find it “very important” to have someone who respects them, and someone whom they can trust and confide in.  Singles are following personal values and letting their partners follow their own religious paths.  We are becoming much like the peoples of New Guinea—for whom religion is personal, and profound.  

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Right?   Wrong!  I have come to believe that we must do onto others and they would have done unto them.   But who are they?   This week, with the publication of our article in the journal, PLoS One (link below), I and my colleagues have taking a step toward understanding ourselves—and our future.   I’m over the moon about it.  

As you may know, I designed a questionnaire to measure the personality traits linked with four basic biological systems.   Those highly expressive of the traits linked with dopamine tend to seek novelty; they are also curious, creative, spontaneous, energetic, mentally flexible and enthusiastic, what I call the Explorer.   Those more expressive of the traits linked with the serotonin system tend to observe social norms instead, as well as follow rules, respect authority, stick to plans and habits, and be good with numbers: the Builder.  Meanwhile, those predominantly expressive of the traits linked with testosterone tend to be analytical, direct, decisive, tough-minded, and good at engineering, mechanics or other spatial/mathematical tasks: the Director.   Last, those particularly expressive of the estrogen system tend to see the big picture, as well as be imaginative, intuitive, good with people, linguistically skilled, empathetic and emotionally expressive: the Negotiator.  

But even though I meticulously studied thae scientific literature to collect the suite of traits linked with each of these four biological systems, then carefully assembled these traits into a questionnaire, and have now collected questionnaire data on some 13 million members of Match.com and Chemistry.com, I needed to prove to other scientists that my questionnaire actually measured these four biological systems.  So with my brain-scanning partner, Dr. Lucy Brown and other colleagues, I gave my questionnaire to 18 newlyweds and 17 long-married people; then we put them in the brain scanner. 

When the results came in, I felt like jumping in the sky.   Those who scored high on my proposed dopamine scale showed more activity in a major dopamine pathway.  Those who scored high on my proposed serotonin scale showed more activity in a little factory linked with “social norm conformity.”   Those scoring high on my proposed testosterone scale showed more activity in brain regions linked with mathematical talent and visual acuity, brain areas primarily built by testosterone.  Last, those who scored high on my proposed estrogen scale showed more activity in brain regions linked with empathy.  Almost perfect!  And we got the same results in both studies.  

Rarely in a scientist’s life does one stumble onto one of nature’s blueprints—in this case, some of the fundamental structure of human personality.   And the more we learn about these four biologically-based styles of thinking and behaving, the more we will come to understand how to make compatible, rewarding, long term partnerships, build better work teams and sports teams, and create better relationships between teachers and students, parents and children, doctors and patients, even political leaders.  As the blueprint of the mind unfolds, we can (naturally) reach those we love.  

OUR PAPER: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078734

We now know what happens in the brain when you first meet someone new:  two small factories that lie behind your forehead leap into action.   One brain region tries to decide if this person is physically attractive enough, ie sexy enough, to be an acceptable partner in your bed.  The second brain region tries to establish whether this individual is likeable, not likeable in a general way, but likeable to you.

But if this neural circuitry initially evolved millions of years ago as an effective way to size up a potential partner, it’s not necessarily useful in our modern world.   Our ancestral forebears traveled the plains of Africa in small extended family bands and regularly met familiar friends and relatives.   Today, however, these vast community networks are disappearing.   And most of the potential partners we meet are unfamiliar, even strange.   So in our modern clime, these primitive brain circuits are likely to shout “NO WAY,” long before you can realistically appraise a potential mate.  

To make the process of mate selection even trickier, when you first meet someone new, you have very little data about him or her.   So one tends to overweigh these few nuggets of information.  His somewhat-crooked teeth might be far less important to you if you also knew he was a brilliant professor, a billionaire, a famous musician, or had other qualities you wanted in a mate.   First impressions aren’t complete.  And your primitive brain circuits are likely to respond negatively to this paltry set of initial facts, casting out what could have been a soul mate.   

So I have an immodest proposal:  In the classic movie, The African Queen, Katherine Hepburn says to Humphrey Boggart, “Nature, Mr. Alnutt, is something we were put on this earth to rise above.”  Not everything we lug around in our brain is useful in today’s social atmosphere.  So unless these brain regions instantly tell you this individual has absolutely no sex appeal for you, and his/her personality is equally unappealing, try to rise above your heritage.  Data show that the more you interact with someone, the more you regard him or her as good looking, interesting, smart and similar to yourself.   The better you like them, too.   Indeed, in our annual Match.com survey of Singles in America, we found that some 35% of men and women eventually fell in love with someone they didn’t initially find attractive.  

So quiet those little voices in your head–and take a second look.   

Women are the picky sex.  And they probably always have been.  They bear the baby for nine months; and in every society on earth, women spend more time at infant care than men.  Not to say that men don’t have childcare duties.  For millions of years men’s job was to protect the family and provide hard won meat.  They got the dangerous jobs.  But women spend more time in direct care for the young—day and night.   And every year that we do our annual national survey of Singles in America with Match.com, we find that women are the picky sex.  They are more likely than men to say they must have a partner of the same ethnic background, same religion, and same educational level, someone who had a sense of humor, someone they can trust and confide in, someone comfortable in their sexuality and someone who can make them laugh.  All this sounds reasonable.

But then comes the little stuff, all the idiosyncratic wants that are harder to find.

Hooking up; friends with benefits; living together before marriage; constant texting on cell phones: many Americans believe the young are ushering in an era of emotional isolation and sexual chaos. But as a biological anthropologist, I am optimistic about the future of relationships.  Foremost, singles of all ages are leading the way to a far less prejudiced society: some 75% of singles would make a long-term commitment to someone of a different ethnic background. U.S. singles don’t care what color you are; they care about a partner’s religious beliefs either. Some 70% of singles would commit to someone of a different faith. And marriage? Most singles of reproductive age want to wed: 79% of men and women in their 20s and 62% of those in their 30s want to tie the knot.  

And they want to marry for what I regard as the “right” reasons. Only 14% want to marry for financial security—something women were obliged to do for thousands of years.  Instead, 86% of singles say they primarily want to wed to “have a committed partner to share my life with.” Even those who don’t want to marry say their main reason is that they “don’t think you need a marriage to prove you love someone.” The significance of marriage may be declining; but love is in. 

We are turning inward—forming relationships to fulfill ourselves. For centuries, our forebears chose the “right” spouse, with the “right” kin connections, the “right” ethnic background, and the “right” religious beliefs.  Not today, as the annual Match.com Singles in America study clearly shows:  some 90% of singles say they want a partner “who respects them,” someone they can “trust and confide in,” and someone who “makes them laugh.” 

Singles seek a highly personal relationship, and they spend a lot of time looking for that special one. You may regard hooking up and friends with benefits relationships as utterly irresponsible. I’m not advocating either.  But singles learn a great deal about a would-be partner (and themselves) from these pre-commitment escapades–information they might need before wedding in an age where divorce is common, extra-marital sexual opportunities abound, and their dispersed biological families may not be around to help them raise their young. 

Traditional forms of partnering are declining as well, replaced by far more flexible customs and beliefs.  Some 92% of men are comfortable with a woman asking them out; and 33% of men would make a long-term commitment to a woman who is 10+ years older. Moreover, most singles now approve of same-sex marriage, childfree marriage and having children out of wedlock.  However, they don’t approve of commuter marriages, sexually open relationships, or partners living in separate homes or separate bedrooms. Any kind of arrangement that may threaten a deeply personal connection to a committed mate is becoming unacceptable.

American singles are shedding thousands of years of racial, religious, and family-centric prohibitions to build partnerships for a higher reason: love. 

Do you know your friends?  I’m referring to those in the age cohort 18 to 34:  Millennials.  I ask because many think they’re just sex monkeys who mooch off mom and dad–living in the family basement while making no effort to find romance or marry.  So Match and I decided to find out who these people really are.  

As you may know, we do an annual survey of 5000+ single men and women, known as Singles in America.  Match began this research in 2010 and we have now collected data on over 35,000 Americans from every part of the country, every background, and every age (over 18).  We don’t poll Match members, however.   This is a scientific study using a representative sample of single Americans, based on the U.S. census.  And this year we focused on that “racy” crowd:  Millennials.

Foremost, they aren’t very sexy.  Indeed, these men and women were 51% more likely that Boomers, (ages 52 to 71+) to say they have no interest in sex.   

But it’s when they begin their sexual escapades that they become creative.   Some 34% of singles–of all ages–have had sex with someone before a first date.  But Millennials are 90% more likely than Boomers.  This may seem strange.   But consider this:  Millennials are busy.  They are doggedly pursuing their careers—women as well as men.  In fact, where young women used to give up career for family; now they are foregoing family to first pursue career.  And all Millennials are particularly attracted to entrepreneurs—those scrappy, daring, geniuses who forge new ideas in new ways.  

So I have come to believe that Millennials are using pre-date sex as a sex interview—an innovative way to decide whether they want to spend their precious time and money to launch this relationship.  Indeed, you learn a lot between the sheets.  Others may be using pre-date sex to lure someone into a first date; while still others may be trying to trigger the brain circuitry for romance and attachment as well.  Men, by the way, are particularly likely to regard a one-night stand as an efficient way to jump start a long-term partnership.

And Millennials do seek love.  They are 30% more likely than those of any other generation to want to find romance and commitment in 2017.   Some feel pressure from their parents to settle down; others want to keep up with their married friends; and many want to make a family of their own.  And they are using the Internet to do it.  Today 40% of actively dating Singles have dated someone they met on line; while only 24% met through a friend.    But Millennials lead the pack.  They’re smart too:  on line daters are significantly more likely to be fully employed, to have more education and to want to wed.  

So although many Millennials feel burned out by the dating process, they are avidly seeking love—albeit, often in unconventional ways.  I am enormously optimistic about this ambitious, creative and daring youngest generation of adults.  Millennials rock.

Men have far more intimate conversations with their wives and lovers than do women with their spouses or partners.  Why?   Because women have their intimate conversations with their female friends.  And there’s no better place than the “Ladies Room.”    No men in there.   You can even shout between stalls.   Indeed, I’ve overheard some colorful conversations in the “john.”   We like to go in flocks too; the more the merrier: everyone can gossip about “him” or “them” in utter safety.    And if you think women aren’t doing business too, you’re wrong.   I’ve broached several business issues in the privacy of the loo.  Men, on the other hand, say nothing in the Men’s Room.  I know from personal experience.  Recently, while in the Dallas airport, I absent-mindedly dashed into the Men’s room.  I was entirely absorbed in my thoughts.  And as there was no one in there but me, I felt comfortable—until I emerged from a stall.  Then, to my horror, I saw six men lined up along the urinals, all standing in utter silence, stone-faced, staring forward.   And as I fled past them, not a single one smiled, frowned, uttered a word or even turned his head toward me.   Men don’t go to the bathroom to socialize.  They trade secretes on the golf course, in the dugout or in the bar or lunchroom.   And they never linger.  Or look around.   Most are afraid of being regarded as “gay.”   No; for men, the bathroom is a business trip.  The ones I saw were robots—luckily for me.  

Experts Explain Why We Love Reality Dating Shows, Even Though We Know They’re Fake There’s no way those couples are really engaged, so why can’t we stop watching? Good Housekeeping – BY DINA CHENEY Apr 22, 2020