Falling In Love: Why We Choose The Lovers We Choose Part 9

An amusing study was conducted on a university campus. An attractive young man and an attractive young woman approached students of the opposite s.e.x and offered to go to bed with them.

Seventy-five percent of the male students approached by the young woman and zero zero percent of the female students approached by the young man accepted the offer (Clark & Hatfield, 1989). percent of the female students approached by the young man accepted the offer (Clark & Hatfield, 1989).

What about women who are as s.e.xually active as men? Interviews with highly s.e.xually active men and women showed that in women, but not in men, the large number of s.e.xual partners was related to emotional vulnerability and anxiety about the partner's willingness to invest in the relationship. This may reflect women's difficulty in 108.

dissociating s.e.xual pleasure from the partner's emotional involvement (Townsend, 1995). In recent years the evolutionary theory has been gaining force and followers. All of the studies mentioned in this section support the claim that physical appearance is more important to men, while status and economic success are more important to women. She loves his success and he loves her beauty, as we see in the famous example in Figure 9.

Evaluation of Evolutionary Theory With the growing popularity of evolutionary theory grew the number of its critics. One of those critics, a biologist, noted the great leap that evolutionary theorists make "from the seemingly innocent asymmetries between eggs and sperm" to such "major consequences"

as female fidelity, male promiscuity, women's disproportional contribution to the care of children, and the unequal distribution of labor by gender (Hubbard, 1990). Another critic, this time a primatologist, argues very convincingly that evolutionary theorists'

notion of "the coy female" persists "despite the acc.u.mulation of abundant openly available evidence contradicting it." Why, then, does such a notion persist? The reason is a cultural congruence.

Since the evolutionar y explanations for the compet.i.tiveness and promiscuity of men, and the choosiness, s.e.xual inhibition, and flirtatiousness of women fit many elements in popular culture, "coyness" became one of the most commonly mentioned attributes of women in the evolutionary literature (Hrdy, 1988).

With regard to gender differences in romantic attraction, evolutionary theory attempts to use the same concepts to explain contradictory behaviors- not only why women are coy, but why they flaunt FIGURE 9. Prince Charles and Princess Diana. Prince Charles and Princess Diana.

their s.e.xuality; not only The apotheosis of the successful man and the beautiful woman.

ON GENDER AND LOVE, STATUS AND BEAUTY.

109.

why men are promiscuous, but why they emphasize their s.e.xual fidelity. Despite this theoretical flexibility, there are numerous findings that do not fit evolutionary theory. In addition, there are other convincing explanations for the gender differences in romantic attraction and mate selection strategies.

Most of the theories that oppose evolutionary theory offer a social explanation for the gender differences in romantic attraction. While evolutionary theory views romantic love as a cultural means to a biological end (de Munck, 1998), the social theories emphasize the role played by social forces such as social norms and s.e.x-role stereotypes.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ROMANTIC ATTRACTION: SOCIAL THEORIES.

The evolutionary explanation of the gender differences in romantic attraction, as well as the psychoa.n.a.lytic explanation that will be discussed later, are based on the a.s.sumption that gender differences in romantic attraction are real. They are both challenged by social explanations that are based on the a.s.sumption that these gender differences are not not real. According to one explanation, gender differences in romantic attraction result from the operation of social forces such as gender-role stereotypes, social roles, social norms, and differences in social power. Socialization toward different gender roles and scripts and different norms for men and women dictate different preferences in a potential mate. real. According to one explanation, gender differences in romantic attraction result from the operation of social forces such as gender-role stereotypes, social roles, social norms, and differences in social power. Socialization toward different gender roles and scripts and different norms for men and women dictate different preferences in a potential mate.

According to another social explanation, based on social construction theory, reality is socially constructed. The similarity between men and women in most things, including romantic attraction, is far greater than the differences. Therefore, individual differences and social differences in romantic attraction should be noted and emphasized more than gender differences.

Here is an example of a study that achieved results similar to those of evolutionary theorists, but was explained by a social theory.

In terms of determining the choice of a romantic partner for both short-term, s.e.xual, and long-term, meaningful, relationships, men and women rated the importance of physical features, demographic variables, and personal qualities. Findings showed, again, that men placed greater emphasis on the physical appearance of their prospective romantic partners, while women placed greater emphasis on the personal qualities. In the context of a meaningful, long-term relationship, however, both men and women weighed various 110 personal qualities more heavily than physical characteristics. Contrary to the evolutionary explanation of the effect of innate genetic programming, these findings were explained by the effect of s.e.x-role stereotypes and traditional s.e.x roles on the romantic preferences of men and women. Since all of us are influenced by the masculine and feminine stereotypes dominant in our culture, we tend to choose partners who fit those stereotypes (Nevid, 1984).

A review of a large number of studies on the topic led the six researchers who conducted the review to conclude that gender differences in romantic attraction and affiliation resulted from "a common, perhaps representative, stereotype" (Benton et al., 1983).

Gender-Role Stereotypes And Their Influence On Romantic Attraction On Romantic Attraction Gender-role stereotypes are those rigidly held, oversimplified beliefs that males and females possess distinct psychological traits and characteristics-solely by virtue of their s.e.x. Such overgeneralizations tend to be widely shared in a given culture (Basow, 1992). While the division by s.e.x is one of the most basic cla.s.sifications of every known human society, the division of labor and the behaviors and traits of males and females differ in different societies. Consequently, the a.s.sociations people have for the words "masculine" and "feminine"

are characteristic of the society and specific sub-culture in which they live.

What function, if any, do stereotypes serve? And what were they created for? Simply to help us process social information faster. Since we cannot possibly process the endless amount of information we absorb through our senses, we organize that information into different cognitive schemas. A schema schema is a cognitive framework, acquired through experience, which directs the way we process new incoming information. After a schema is created it influences the way new information is absorbed, explained, processed, and remembered. We categorize people according to social schemas. To some of those schemas we belong, to others we do not belong. There are many social groups to which we can belong, groups that are defined by such things as race, religion, nationality, profession, political views, and, of course, gender. A gender schema is a cognitive framework that reflects social beliefs about men and women. s.e.xual schemas influence people's responses to s.e.xual-romantic cues, s.e.xual desire, and romantic attachment (Cyranowski & Andersen, 1998). is a cognitive framework, acquired through experience, which directs the way we process new incoming information. After a schema is created it influences the way new information is absorbed, explained, processed, and remembered. We categorize people according to social schemas. To some of those schemas we belong, to others we do not belong. There are many social groups to which we can belong, groups that are defined by such things as race, religion, nationality, profession, political views, and, of course, gender. A gender schema is a cognitive framework that reflects social beliefs about men and women. s.e.xual schemas influence people's responses to s.e.xual-romantic cues, s.e.xual desire, and romantic attachment (Cyranowski & Andersen, 1998).

To all apparent purposes, there is nothing wrong with stereotypes.

After all, they are nothing more than cognitive schemas that help us ON GENDER AND LOVE, STATUS AND BEAUTY 111.

make sense of the ocean of information threatening to drown us every moment. The problem is that while organizing and processing all this information, we make mistakes. And these mistakes tend to be consistent. One notable example is that we tend to see groups to which we don't belong as more h.o.m.ogeneous than groups to which we do belong. Thus women tend to a.s.sume that men are closer to the masculine stereotype than men really are, and men tend to a.s.sume that women are closer to the feminine stereotype than women really are. In a study that demonstrated this, men and women examined sentences that described masculine and feminine stereotypes, such as, "Losing a compet.i.tion is depressing" or, "Taking care of a baby is a way of showing love." Findings showed that both men and women a.s.sumed that a higher percentage of members of the opposite s.e.x agreed with these stereotypical sentences than the members of the opposite s.e.x actually did (Park & Rothbart, 1982).

By their nature, stereotypes perpetuate themselves and acquire the power of self-fulfilling prophecies. In a study that demonstrated this power, men and women arrived at the laboratory presumably to partic.i.p.ate in a study that explored the influence of communication on decision-making in organizations. Out of sight of each other, they were asked to use a signaling board to negotiate with a co-worker about the division of labor on different tasks. Some of the tasks were stereotypically masculine, for example, repairing an electrical outlet; some were stereotypically feminine, such as decorating a birthday cake; and some were neutral, such as painting a chair. One- third of the men were told that they were negotiating with a man, one-third were told they were negotiating with a woman, and one-third were told nothing.

Findings showed that women who were thought by their partners in the negotiation to be men, chose more masculine tasks, whereas the women who were thought by their partners to be women, chose more feminine tasks. The reason? The women behaved according to the men's expectations. When the men thought they were negotiating with a woman, they chose masculine tasks for themselves and tended to compromise less when a conflict arose. These behaviors caused the women to behave in ways that confirmed the men's expectations.

In other words, the men's expectations, based on gender-role stereotypes, produced behaviors that confirmed these stereotypes (Skrypneck & Snyder, 1982). The different behaviors of the women thought to be men, and the women thought to be women, suggests that these are not innate s.e.x differences that evolved during thousands of years of evolution. Rather, these are differences that result from gender-role stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies.

112.

Gender-role stereotypes are a social product and they define normative behavior. Stereotyped women are perceived as feminine and stereotyped men are viewed as masculine. Since it is important to people to be accepted and popular, they feel pressure to behave according to gender-role stereotypes. At the getting-acquainted stage of a romantic relationship, it is important to make a good impression.

This forces both men and women to behave according to gender-role stereotypes more than they might otherwise behave.

Most people behave according to the appropriate stereotypes, especially when they are expecting to meet an attractive potential mate. This was demonstrated in a cla.s.sic study that involved four groups of women. One group was told that they were going to meet a very attractive, and brilliant, Ivy League student who held conservative views. The second group was told that they were going to meet a very attractive and brilliant, Ivy League student who held liberal views. The third group was told they were going to meet an unattractive and mediocre student who held conservative views at a mediocre university. The fourth group was told they were going to meet an unattractive, and liberal, mediocre student at a mediocre university. The women were asked to describe themselves and were told that their descriptions would be given to the man. These same women had also partic.i.p.ated in a previous, unconnected, study in which they had given detailed descriptions of themselves.

Results showed that the women who thought they were going to meet an attractive, conservative man described themselves as more feminine and less intelligent. The women who thought they were going to meet an attractive, liberal man described themselves as less feminine and more intelligent. The women who thought they were going to meet an unattractive man didn't alter their descriptions of themselves. The changes in self-presentation of the first two groups of women were not related to the women's real views, either conservative or liberal (Zana & Pack, 1975).

In a thirty-year-old study that is still relevant today, eight hundred women were given three questionnaires covering "self perception,"

"the ideal woman," and "the ideal woman as seen by men."

Comparison of the responses that the women gave to the three questionnaires revealed a small discrepancy between their perceptions of themselves and their perceptions of the ideal woman. However, there were very large differences between their own views of the ideal woman and their a.s.sumptions about the male view of the ideal woman. When men described the ideal woman, their responses were very similar to the women's descriptions of the ideal woman. But there were big differences between the men's descriptions of the ON GENDER AND LOVE, STATUS AND BEAUTY 113.

ideal woman and the women's descriptions of the male's ideal woman. Men's descriptions of the ideal woman were less conservative than the women thought she would be (Steinman & Fox, 1970).

Similar findings emerged when men were asked to describe themselves, the ideal man, and the ideal man as seen by women. In similar fashion, there was a big discrepancy between men's perception of women's ideal man, and women's true ideal. Men thought that women preferred family men. In fact, there was a great similarity in the descriptions of the ideal man by both men and women.

Do Stereotypes Have a Basis in Reality?

Carol Martin believes that the answer is a definite no. Martin (1987) showed that when students are asked about the traits that characterize men and women, they describe the familiar stereotypes. When they are asked to describe themselves, the stereotypes disappear almost altogether. An exercise I do in my cla.s.ses on the psychology of gender shows the same thing. I ask my students to write the traits they a.s.sociate with masculinity and those they a.s.sociate with femininity.

The traits they invariably mention describe s.e.x-role stereotypes.

When I ask them how many of the traits describe themselves, it turns out, to their great surprise, that almost none do.

Other studies also show little basis for stereotypes. When men and women were asked what att.i.tudes and qualities they, personally, and members of their s.e.x value, there was a big similarity in the values of men and women. Both s.e.xes value such traits as honesty, responsibility, and open-mindedness. These are characteristics that are not included in studies of s.e.x-role stereotypes. Nevertheless, when they were asked about the values of the other s.e.x, the stereotypes appeared; women exaggerated the importance that men attribute to achievement, and men exaggerated the importance that women attribute to nurturing. The conclusion, gender differences are far smaller in reality than they appear to be in stereotypes (Unger, 1975).

Here is the paradox. Both men and women play their prescribed s.e.x roles and then complain about the results. Couples are first attracted to each other because each fits the stereotype. She is attracted to him because he is strong, silent, masculine, a.s.sertive, and skilled.

He is attracted to her because she is warm, sensitive, open, and verbal.

Later she will complain that he doesn't talk and he will complain that she's a nag (Tavris, 1992).

Why are people attracted to potential mates who are stereotypically masculine or feminine in light of the evidence that relationships of men and women in traditional gender roles are far from optimal 114 and are generally worse than those in androgynous roles? One answer that was offered is that the attraction to stereotypes reflects a conflict between what old genetic imprints and past values dispose people to do and what the present culture prescribes, such as more androgynous relationships (Ickees, 1993).

A recent study in which instrumentality, a masculine trait, and expressiveness, a feminine trait, of potential partners were manipulated, shows that, indeed, both men and women prefer androgynous partners who combine both these traits over s.e.x-typed partners (Green & Kenrick, 1994).

Another study has shown that women were most attracted to "masculinity with a feminine touch" (Cramer et al., 1993). In this study, young educated women either listened to prerecorded responses or read verbatim transcripts of two men answering questions on topics such as car repairs, career opportunities, and romantic interests. One set of answers was constructed to reflect stereotypically masculine activities and interests; the second set reflected stereotypically masculine and and feminine activities and interests. Findings showed that women rated the androgynous man as more likeable, intelligent, moral, mentally healthy, appropriate, and honest than they rated the masculine man. feminine activities and interests. Findings showed that women rated the androgynous man as more likeable, intelligent, moral, mentally healthy, appropriate, and honest than they rated the masculine man.

Attraction to a stereotypical macho man can be dangerous, because traditional gender roles have been a.s.sociated with s.e.xual aggression.

Hyperfeminine women who adhere to a traditional gender role were found to be attracted to macho men, preferred them as husbands and s.e.x partners, and thought they resembled past and current boyfriends. These women also reported more attraction to, and interest in, nonconsensual s.e.xual dates, as well as less anger, and more s.e.xual arousal. These findings point to the risk a.s.sociated with the attraction to macho, aggressive, and coercive men, namely, s.e.xual aggression (Maybach & Gold, 1994).

Gender stereotypes convey a clear message about how men and women are supposed to behave toward each other, who they are supposed to be attracted to, and how they are supposed to express this attraction. Men are supposed to be attracted to "feminine"

women, and women are supposed to be attracted to "masculine"

men (Basow, 1992). Similarly, handsome men are seen as masculine and beautiful women are seen as feminine (Gillen, 1981).

Nevertheless, when the traits most desired most desired in a mate are examined, no gender differences are found (Goodwin, 1990; Smith et al., 1990). in a mate are examined, no gender differences are found (Goodwin, 1990; Smith et al., 1990).

Furthermore, when the types of men most attractive to women are examined, it turns out that women prefer feminine to masculine men as both friends and romantic partners. Income contributes to a ON GENDER AND LOVE, STATUS AND BEAUTY 115.

man's romantic attraction only when the man has desirable personality traits, suggesting that women consider income only after personality criteria are met. In fact, a man's personality factors relate more consistently to his romantic appeal to women than do his success factors-and a man's belief in gender equality has the greatest influence on his attractiveness to women (Desrochers, 1995).

Gender-role stereotypes have more influence during the early stages of young people's romantic relationships than they do on more established, long-term relationships involving older people. A Dutch/German study demonstrated that while young, single people follow the stereotypical male preference for good looks and female preference for financial prospects, older people value a steady relationship and exhibit a stronger desire for home and children, chast.i.ty and ambition (de-Raad & Boddema, 1992).

Young men and women whose personalities are shaped by gender-role stereotypes in their late teens, continue to be influenced by, and shape their romantic relationships according to these stereotypes in their young adulthood. In an ongoing study of personality and gender differences in romantic attraction, I found that the closer to one of the gender-role stereotypes young people's personalities were at age 18, the more this predicted their intimate relationships at age 23 (Pines, 1998b).

Even studies that were presented as theoretically supporting the evolutionary perspective can be explained by gender-role stereotypes.

In the study of personal ads, for example, it can be said that women emphasize traits such as economic status because it fits the masculine gender stereotype. Men, on the other hand, emphasize an attractive appearance because it fits the desirable feminine stereotype (Davis, 1990).

The Influence of Social Norms Social theorists are convinced that gender differences in casual s.e.x provide no proof for evolutionary theory. They explain these differences as social forces, such as social norms, that dictate the appropriate behavior for men and women when offered casual s.e.x (Hyde, 1993). Furthermore, the famous study that demonstrated a gender difference in its approach to casual s.e.x, also showed that men are as choosy as women are when it comes to selecting a marriage partner (Kenrick et al., 1993).

Clear, yet different, norms influence the "average" man and woman's s.e.xual expectations of a dating relationship. Men generally expect s.e.xual intercourse after approximately nine to eleven dates, fewer than women's expectation of approximately fifteen to eighteen 116 dates (Cohen & Shotland, 1996). When asked about possible responses to hypothetical encounters between a man and a woman, men are likely to choose more responses leading to s.e.xual activity and to express greater s.e.xual desire (Leigh & Aramburu, 1996), There are different s.e.xual scripts for men and women (Chafetz, 1975). According to the masculine s.e.xual script, a man who has casual s.e.xual relationships is a playboy or a Don Juan. According to the feminine s.e.xual script, a woman who has casual s.e.x is a s.l.u.t.

Since the label "a playboy" is rather positive while the label "a s.l.u.t"

is very negative, the labels, or more accurately the norms behind them, dictate very different behaviors for men and women.

Even if there is a significant gender difference in their approach approach to casual s.e.x, it does not mean that there is a difference between men and women in either level of s.e.xuality or romantic attraction. The stereotype that women have little interest in their s.e.xual functioning, or are unable to function s.e.xually at a level similar to that of men, is just that, a stereotype with little base in reality (Small, 1992). to casual s.e.x, it does not mean that there is a difference between men and women in either level of s.e.xuality or romantic attraction. The stereotype that women have little interest in their s.e.xual functioning, or are unable to function s.e.xually at a level similar to that of men, is just that, a stereotype with little base in reality (Small, 1992).

Other scientists who discovered gender differences in romantic attraction also chose to explain them by referring to the functions of various social forces. They argued that women were not genetically programmed to be pragmatic about love, social reality forced them to be (Dion & Dion, 1973). Social norms, and not genetic programming, dictate what is attractive in a potential mate (Aron & Aron, 1986).

Another social variable-power-has been used to explain gender differences in romantic attraction (Low, 1990). Women choose men who are older, taller, wiser, and more educated because they make it "natural" for them to be weaker. Similarly, men choose women who are younger, shorter, less intelligent, and less educated because they can more easily maintain their social power. Neither the men nor the women are necessarily aware of the fact that their romantic choices are influenced by power considerations. Their s.e.x-role socialization and the acceptable social norms make it easy for them to be.

Even when the findings reported by David Buss, the leading proponent and spokesman of the evolutionary perspective, are examined carefully, the main finding is not of gender differences in romantic attraction and mate selection, but rather of gender similarity.

In one of his studies it was discovered, for example, that the most important traits in a potential mate, for both men and women, are kindness and consideration (Buss & Barnes, 1986).

Self-evaluation also influences romantic attraction. A study showed that men with a low self-concept are more attracted to traditional ON GENDER AND LOVE, STATUS AND BEAUTY 117.

women, whereas men with high self-concept are more attracted to modern, liberal women. Why? Liberal women are perceived as more a.s.sertive, self-confident, and independent than traditional women, and may present a threat to the sense of independence and control of men with a low self-concept. In an attempt to enhance their egos when they feel threatened, these men need to reject non-traditional women. A man who is sure of himself is not threatened by women and therefore does not have a need to criticize a.s.sertive and independent women (Grube et al., 1982).

In summary, some studies contradict evolutionary theory predictions, and even the results of evolutionary studies can be explained by social norm theory. Occasionally, rather than demonstrating a difference, even evolutionary studies actually ill.u.s.trate a greater similarity in romantic attraction between men and women.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ROMANTIC ATTRACTION: PSYCHOa.n.a.lYTIC THEORY.

We turn now to the third fascinating theory that attempts to explain gender differences in romantic attraction. Several well-known feminist psychoa.n.a.lysts agree with evolutionary theorists about the existence of significant gender differences in romantic attraction, but they explain them very differently.6 These theorists believe that gender differences in romantic attraction and romantic love are not the result of a biological imperative but rather the result of different childhood experiences and different developmental tasks that boys and girls face growing up in a patriarchal society such as ours.

Their explanation for gender differences in love starts with a fact so obvious that most of us don't even acknowledge it. As poet Adrian Rich states it, we are all "of woman born" (1976). All of us, men and women alike, are born to a woman. This simple biological fact carries an enormous psychological significance. Since a woman gives birth and nurses, the woman in most human societies, even if she is not the biological mother, is almost always the baby's primary care giver.

"No fact of our early life has greater consequences for how girls and boys develop into women and men, [and] therefore for how we relate to each other in our adult years" writes Lillian Rubin (1983).

Because a woman, most often the mother, takes care of them in the first months of their life, a woman is the first "love object" for both baby boys and baby girls. It is she with whom they form their first attachment and first symbiotic bond, the bond they will later 118 try to recreate in their adult romantic love relationships. During these first stages of development, their love for her is both emotional and erotic. When they develop the ability to differentiate self from other, mother is for both baby boys and baby girls the first object of identification. In order to develop a mature personality both boys and girls have to accomplish two tasks: develop a sense of self that is separate and autonomous and develop the ability to relate to others (Blatt & Bla.s.s, 1996).

The accomplishment of these two tasks is related to the development of gender ident.i.ty which begins at about age one and a half. This developmental process is different for boys and for girls.

Boys, in order to develop a masculine gender ident.i.ty need to suppress their emotional attachment to Mother and shift their identification to Father. Since his p.e.n.i.s defines him in this stage ("I have a p.e.n.i.s like my father, that's why I'm a man like him"), it becomes the center of the man's masculine ident.i.ty. The infantile identification with Mother is repressed, and defenses are erected against the needs and emotional experiences of infancy. When men fall in love, they find again the emotional bond with a woman. The boyhood conflict between longing for the symbiosis with mother and anxiety about losing himself in this symbiosis is repeated in intimate relationships.

Men long for closeness and intimacy with a woman but are also terrified by it (Rubin, 1983).

As a result of the early separation from mother, the basic masculine self is separate and autonomous. Being different from women is central to masculine ident.i.ty. Boys have an easier time establishing ego boundaries that make them feel separate and independent, and a harder time developing a masculine gender ident.i.ty. Later on, it is easy for most men to be independent and maintain firm ego boundaries, but they have a hard time being intimate. In other words, men accomplish easily the developmental task of self-definition but have a harder time accomplishing the task of relatedness.

Girls don't need to separate from mother in order to develop a feminine gender ident.i.ty. As a result, for most women it is easy to develop a gender ident.i.ty, to be like Mother, and easy to be intimate, but difficult to develop an independent self and establish firm ego boundaries. In other words, women easily accomplish the developmental task of relatedness, but have a harder time accomplishing the task of self-definition.

As a result of these different developmental processes, the basic masculine self, one of independence and separation, derives satisfaction in compet.i.tion and achievements (Pleck, 1977), whereas ON GENDER AND LOVE, STATUS AND BEAUTY 119.

the basic feminine self, one of relatedness, derives satisfaction from being in an intimate relationship (Miller, 1976).

For boys, while the emotional attachment to Mother is suppressed, the bodily bonding of infancy, which is to say the erotic or s.e.xual aspect of the attachment to her, is left undisturbed and is later transferred to other women. For girls the erotic attachment to Mother must be denied, shifted to Father, and, later in life, transferred to another man, while the emotional involvement and identification with Mother remains intact.

Since women had to repress their s.e.xual attraction to Mother, but not the emotional connection, the emotional connection is dominant in their love experiences. For them, there is no satisfying s.e.xual relationship without an emotional connection. On the other hand, since men had to repress their emotional connection to Mother but not the s.e.xual attraction, the s.e.xual connection is dominant in their romantic relationships. This is why "for men, the erotic aspect of any relationship remains forever the most compelling, while for women the emotional component will always be the most salient"

(Rubin, 1983).

Psychological development also affects the different roles of words and s.e.x for men and women. Since the repression of the attachment to Mother happens at such an early age for boys, men do not connect feelings with words the way women do. For men, physical connection is at the center of intimacy. For women, words are at the center of intimacy (Rubin, 1983).

Because of these different childhood experiences, women, more so than men, look for commitment, intimacy, and security in their intimate relationships, whereas men look for physical appearance and s.e.xual appeal in potential mates. Indeed, in the romantic attachment interviews, women described romantic relationships with higher levels of intimacy, commitment, and security than the relationships men described. And, as noted before, men described the physical appearances of their mates as playing a more important role in their romantic attractions.7 One result of these different processes is a dance of intimacy in which one partner, most often the woman, is the pursuer, and the other partner, most often the man, is the distancer. One extreme example of the distancer in the dance of intimacy is the commitment-phobic man. Often this is a man that a woman doesn't even notice.

But he pursues her with such enthusiasm and determination that she can't ignore him. His most impressive trait is his ability to express love. Contrary to most men, this type of man can talk for hours about feelings, show vulnerability, bond, and appear truly intimate.

120.

The woman, who is dazzled by this outpouring of verbal sensitivity, starts to think that she has found her true love. But when the woman finally surrenders and reciprocates his love, he disappears. At first she is convinced that something terrible has happened to him. After all, he had never failed to arrive for a date or call when he promised he would. She starts searching for him, only to realize that she doesn't actually know where he lives. He always came to her house when they went on a date, something she viewed as yet another testimony of his love of her. She doesn't know where he works; he was kind of vague about it and seemed much more interested in what she was doing, which was also wonderfully flattering. She doesn't know his family or any of his friends because they always spent time with her friends. Gradually it dawns on her that Prince Charming is really gone. Men like him are capable of expressing their need for a symbiosis only as long as the woman is not interested in them. The minute she reciprocates their love, their anxiety about being engulfed surfaces and they run away. After the woman has overcome the trauma of his disappearance, and has given up on him, he can reappear in her life as enthusiastic as ever, with some feeble explanation for his disappearance. She learns very quickly that the only sure way to hold a man like this is by refusing him.

THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT GENDER DIFFERENCES.

IN ROMANTIC ATTRACTION:.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION THEORY.

While both the evolutionary and psychoa.n.a.lytic theories a.s.sume that gender differences in attraction are real, studies of s.e.x-role stereotypes a.s.sume that they are not real, but rather an attempt on the part of both men and women to behave according to prescribed social norms. An even more extreme position is taken by social constructionists who argue that the similarities in romantic attraction between men and women are far greater and more significant than the differences between them. The individual differences among men and among women are more important than the gender differences between men and women.8 Social construction theory rests on the belief that reality is socially constructed (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). There is no, one, particular "reality" that is simultaneously experienced by all people. Different cultures have their own unique understandings of the world. Yet people are not pa.s.sive recipients of these societal scripts. They actively construct their perceptions of the world and use the culture as a ON GENDER AND LOVE, STATUS AND BEAUTY 121.

guide. Social construction ideas have been applied to many areas, among them, intimate relationships (Gergen & Gergen, 1992) and romantic love (Beall & Sternberg, 1995).

According to social construction theory, romantic love is a social construction. Societies differ in their understanding of the nature of romantic love. And even within the same society, romantic love has been conceptualized differently in different times and periods in history. Within as complex a society as Northern America, there are different sub-cultures and ethnic groups that have different conceptions of romantic love (Jacobson & Christensen, 1996). The cultural influences far outweigh genetic and evolutionary influences.