Romance for Real Women

Real women know that some subjects are much too rich to be mined adequately in just one blog. Such is the case with the recent University of Texas study I mentioned yesterday.The headlines focused on the fact that the study found that beautiful woman want it all…status, economic prospects, resource acquisition potential (whatever that means), etc. The study was carried on major news outlets like ABC and FOX with all the correspondents agog at this seemingly new and fantastic fact.

All of them overlooked the truth that after, say, the age of twenty, beautiful women have to work at being beautiful. Duh. Also, that there is a point to all this effort…getting and keeping a guy. It’s their job, honey. Of course, they want the most for their efforts. Duh.

Your faithful correspondent, however, took the time to read the entire news reports and thus came upon the nugget, buried at the end of the stories, that all of the interviewees, beautiful or otherwise, rated intelligence as the least important of desirable “mate value” qualities in a partner.

I don’t know about you, but it is taking me a little time to assimilate this factoid.

I e-mailed the study to my partner who heretofore I was unashamed to admit is highly intelligent.

“Whaaat?” he said. Notice the one syllable word. Perhaps that counts.

“Who authored it?”

“The University of Texas issued it,” I said. “It’s apparently in the current issue of Evolutionary Psychology.” I added, just so he would know I’d done my research. Opps. Too intelligent. Aware my mate value was plummeting egregiously, I quickly mumbled, “I don’t know.”

“Huh?” he said.

Bravo, I thought. Perhaps he is, after all, on the evolutionary curve.

“What’s for dinner?” he asked, switching gears. Ah, hah, I thought, this is great. A short attention span. An inability to focus. Gotta be headed in the right direction.

But I floundered. The study didn’t indicate whether pulling together a hot meal on time has mate value. It does, after all, take a modicum of intelligence to plan, cook and have a meal ready. Or at least, that’s what I always thought.

So, I took refuge in an old trick. I stuck my fingers in my hair and pulled, just slightly. But, he didn’t see my mate value enhancing confusion. We were on the phone.

I didn’t say anything. I waited. He waited. Damn, this stuff is hard. So, at last I ventured. “I don’t know.”

He sighed and it wasn’t a pretty sound. I’d promised him something special. But I want to be on the evolutionary curve, too.

“How about I pick something up?” he finally said.

“Great,” I started to say, but then thought maybe just an “Okay” might have higher evolutionary mate value.

“Are you all right?” he asked and I felt a nice wave of concern.

“Fine,” I mumbled. “See you later.”

I clicked the off button on my cell phone and sat there for a few minutes looking at it.

“Fuck this,” I thought in words of one syllable.

I thawed a steak and had a glass of wine. Then I e-mailed him and told him to forget the Chinese.

Real women might want to sit up and take notice of a just released University of Texas study on the different “mate values” harbored by men and women. According to the study, it’s a “serious effort to delve into an area that has been largely ignored by scientists.”

“Mate Values.”

That’s a new one.

Boiled down, the study found that beautiful people are attracted to beautiful people; it found that beautiful women want more from a man than a hot bod; and, it found that powerful men tend to have multiple wives and play around.

All kind of jaw dropping, huh?

According to news reports, the authors sent teams of interviewers to rate the attractiveness of women interviewed. Once they were rated, and I for one would love to know what they made of tattoos, like are shoulder tattoos more beautiful than butt tattoos? Did the respondents show them? What about various body piercings? Were they counted?

At any rate, respondents, rated beautiful or ugly, were given a list of “mate value” attributes, sex appeal, good earning capacity, good parenting indicators, education, etc., and asked to prioritize them.

Intelligence was at the bottom of the list.

No kidding. For both “beauties” and “plain Janes.” The researchers described the finding as a “puzzle.”

Who the hell did they ask? UT co-eds?

“Honey, you’re dumb as a post, but you’ve got ‘good partner indicator.’”

Think about it.

All those smart guys out there with poor mate value.

So saddle up, ladies. I, for one, like a guy who’s smart enough to check the mail, empty the dishwater and find a fuse box.

I think the playing field just got leveled.