Chapter 08 - Dating and Mate Selection
Sixty years ago if you were of marrying age, you’d most likely select someone based on how your parents felt about it; how healthy the person appeared to be; how good/moral their character appeared to be; and how stable their economic resources appeared to be. Today we search for soul mates. Look around you in the classroom. How many potential mates are sitting there? In other words, how many single females or males are there in the same classroom? Now of those, how many would you be attracted to as a date and how many can you tell just by watching them that you’d probably never date? These are the types of questions and answers we consider when we study dating and mate selection.
In the United States there are millions of people between the ages of 18-24 (18-24 is considered prime dating and mate selection ages). The U.S. Census Bureau conducts annual surveys of the U.S. population and publishes them as the Current Population Surveys. Table 1 represents the numbers and percentages of 2019 and 2011 U.S. Family Types. You will notice that marrieds comprised the largest proportion of family types in 2019 and in 2011. Marriage is still the marital status preferred the most and it might include first marriages, second or later marriages (remarriages, heterosexual or same-sex marriages inter-racial or inter-ethnic marriages, traditional or conservative marriages. Both the number and the percentage of marriages increased from 2011 to 2019. The widowed were fairly constant with few changes. The divorced and separated increased in numbers but not in percentages. The never married singles also increased in numbers and percentages from 2011 to 2019
Table 1. U.S. Family Types Numbers & Percentages 2019 and (2011)
| Types | 2019 & (2011) Numbers in Millions | 2019 & (2011) Percentages |
|---|---|---|
| Married | 137 & (123.9) | 53% & (52%) |
| Widowed | 14.2 & (14.2) | 6% & (6%) |
| Divorced & Seperated | 40.3 & (30.0) | 11% & (12.6%) | Never Married-Single | 85.2 & (75.8) | 32 % & (30%) |
Using data from the American Community Survey online data portal, I found that in 2018 there were 14,768,908 males ages 18-24 and 13,479,322 females ages 18-24 who were never married. There were also another 13,746,479 males ages 25-34 and 11,071,042 females ages 25-34 who were never married. (Data extracted from table “SEX BY MARITAL STATUS BY AGE FOR THE POPULATION 15 YEARS AND OVER” retrieved 6 August 2020 from SOURCE On top of this, there are millions of: older never married; separated; divorced; and millions of never married parents who are also potentially “available” among males and females in the U.S. dating and courtship market.
Ever worry that there are not enough single men or enough single women for you to hangout with or date? Don’t. There are plenty of each and this demographic of our society is increasing with each new generation. For example, a 2016 PewResearch report indicated that in 2014, Generation Y was the generation with the highest proportion of members ages 18 to 34 who still lived with their parents in United States’ history (see Fry, Richard. 2016. “For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, May retrieved 17 July 2020 from SOURCE). With Generations Y and Z having many traits and characteristics in common, I search for any report on their living arrangements as of 2020. Since they are still very young and not reached the age at which marriage or cohabitation might be a choice, no reports were to be found. I did download the age specific living arrangements of U.S. adults in a variety of age groups, combined their data for 2019 and created barcharts of their marital status as reported by the U.S. Census in 2019.
Figure 1 shows these charts. In many measures comparing the similarities between Generations Y and Z, they do have very similar marital statuses and living arrangements in 2019. Generation Z is in the 18-24 categories for Men and Women. Like the Generation Z found to still be living at home with their parents, Generation Z Men (56.0%) and Women (52.0%), at least by ages 18-24 still lived with their parents as the most common arrangement. Look at Generation Z (ages 25-34) and you can see that the percentage of still living with their parents was only 19.0 percent for Men and 12.0 percent for Women; and the percent married and cohabitating was lower for Men (36.0% Mar. and 14.0% Cohab) and higher for Women (45.0% Mar. and 15.0% Cohab).
Figure 1. U.S. Census % Marital Status for Men and Women by Age Categories
When we see people we filter them as either being in or out of our pool of eligibles. Filtering is the process of identifying those we interact with as either being in or out of our pool of people we might consider to be a date or mate. There are many filters we use. One is physical appearance. We might include some because of tattoos and piercing or exclude some for the exact same physical traits. We might include some because they know someone we know or exclude the same people because they are total strangers. Figure 2 shows the basic date and mate selection principles that play into our filtering processes (This inverted pyramid metaphorically represents a filter that a liquid might be poured through to refine it; IE: coffee filter).
That couple in the bottom right-hand corner is my wife and I on a field trip to the Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology in Ypsilanti, Michigan. She and I travel without our children at least twice per year and we have been attending professional conferences together for more than a decade. We met in college in 1985. I was the maintenance man for all of the Women’s dorms and she lived in the dorms (I met many female friends through my work). We dated, became engaged and married in the same year. We worked together for 7 years to put me through my Associates, Bachelors’, Masters, Doctorate, then Post-doctoral fellowship. My wife now has her Bachelors’ degree and is shopping for her Masters. Higher education is a theme that emerged within our life experiences and has spilled over into our children’s’ lives now with 3 in college at this time. All of the principles discussed in this chapter applied to how my wife and I met, became friends, and chose to marry. They will likely apply to you and yours.
Figure2: Types of Filters Used to Eliminate or Include Potential Dates and Mates
Propenquity is the geographic closeness experienced by potential dates and mates. It’s the proximity you might experience by: living in the same dorms or apartment buildings; going to the same university or college; working in the same place of employment; or belonging to the same religious group. Proximity means that you both breathe the same air in the same place at about the same time. Proximity is crucial because the more you see one another or interact directly or indirectly with one another, the more likely you see each other as mates. I often ask my students how they met and when they tell their stories I help them to identify the geography that was involved in the process.
In recent decades, propinquity has been less important than it was in the past. Millions meet, get to know one another, date, and some even fall in love online. A 2020 PewResearch report found that in 2015 and in 2019 significant proportions of adults in a variety of marital status had dated online. Figure 3 shows the percentages in the PewResearch online report. The lighter blue vertical bars indicate the 2015 survey year and the darker blue indicate the 2019 year. Online dating is reported more in 2019 than it was in 2015. In 2019 about 30 percent of all adults in the U.S. had ever used an online dating app but among the married that was only 16 percent (Never Married was 52%, cohabiting was 46 % and Divorced/Separated was 35%). This may be a reflection of people waiting until they are older to marry and of other factors not addressed in this specific study. PewResearch released a news report also in 2020 that showed that 71 percent of those using an online dating app reported that it was very important to see a photo of the other person; 50 percent felt it had neither a positive or negative effect on dating relationships; 12 percent say they married or moved in with someone they met on a dating app (see PewResearch, (14 Feb. 2020) “Shareable facts about Americans’ experiences with online dating” retrieved from the Internet 6 August 2020 from SOURCE
Figure 3. PewResearch Report on Online Dating “Ever” 2015 & 2019
Finally, not all online dating is a positive experience for everyone (you probably already knew this). Yet another 2020 PewResearch report indicated that about 42 percent had reported a negative experience from lying, scams and fake accounts; sexually explicit (unsolicited) messages from other users; harassment or bullying; and or privacy violations. It is important to k-[note that 57 percent reported a positive experience as well (see PewResearch, (6 Feb. 2020) “The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating” retrieved 6 August 2020 from SOURCE
Physical appearance is subjective and is defined differently for each individual. Truly, what one person finds as attractive is not what others find to be attractive. There are a few biological, psychological, and social-emotional aspects of appearance that tend to make an individual more attractive to more people. These include slightly above average desirable traits and symmetry in facial features.
According to the Centers for Disease Control the average man in the United States is 5 foot 9 inches tall and weighs about 198 pounds. The average woman is about 5 foot 4 inches tall and weighs about 171 pounds. Did you just compare yourself? Most of us tend to compare ourselves to averages or to others we know. That’s how we come to define our personal level of attractiveness. This is important to understand that we subjectively judge ourselves as being more or less attractive; because we often limit our dating pool of eligibles to those we think are in our same category of beauty.
If you are 6 foot tall as a man or 5 foot 8 as a woman, then you are slightly above average in height. For men, if they have manly facial features (strong chin and jaw and somewhat prominent brow); slight upper body musculature, and a slim waist then they’d have more universally desirable traits. For women: larger eyes, softer facial features and chin; fuller lips, and an hour-glass figure facilitate more universally desirable traits.
So, here are the million dollar questions: "what if I don’t have these universally desirable traits? And am I excluded from the date and mate selection market? No. There is a principle that I have found to be the most powerful predictor of how we make our dating and mating selection choices--homogamy. Homogamy is the tendency for dates, mates, and spouses to pair off with someone of similar attraction, background, interests, and needs. This is typically true for most couples. They find and pair off with persons of similarity more than difference. Have you ever heard the colloquial phrase, "opposites attract?" To some degree they do, but typically they don’t form committed long-term relationships together.
One of my students challenged this notion in the case of her own relationship. She said, "My husband and I are so different. He like Mexican food, I like Italian. He likes rap and I like classical music. He likes water skiing and I like camping and hiking…" I interrupted her and said, "So you both like ethnic food, music, and outdoors. Do you vote on similar issues? Do you have similar family backgrounds? Do you both come from a similar economic class?" She answered yes to all three questions.
Now, don’t misunderstand me. Couples are not identical, just similar. And we tend to find patterns that indicate that homogamy in a relationship can be indirectly supportive of a long-term relationship quality because it facilitates less disagreements and disconnections of routines in the daily life of a couple. I believe that we filter homogamously and even to the point that we do tend to marry someone like our parents. Here’s why, people from similar: economic class, ethnicity, religion, political persuasion, and lifestyles tend to hang out with others like themselves. Our mates resemble our parents more because we resemble our parents and we tend to look for others like ourselves.
Heterogamy is the dating or pairing of individuals with differences in traits. All of us pair off with heterogamous and homogamous individuals with emphasis more on the latter than the former. Over time, after commitments are made, couples often develop more homogamy. Some develop similar mannerisms; finish each other’s sentences; dress alike; develop mutually common hobbies and interests; and parent together.
One of the most influential psychologists in the 1950-1960s was Abraham Maslow and his famous Pyramid of the Hierarchy of Needs (Google: "A Theory of Human Motivation", 1943, Psychological Review 50(4) (1943):370-96). Maslow’s pyramid has been taught in high schools and colleges for decades. Most of my students tell me they’ve seen the pyramid or studied Maslow in more than once in previous class. Maslow sheds light on how and why we pick the person we pick when choosing a date or mate by focusing on how they meet our needs as a date, mate, or spouse. Persons from dysfunctional homes where children were not nurtured nor supported through childhood would likely be attracted to someone who provides that unfulfilled nurturing need they still have. Persons from homes where they were nurtured, supported, and sustained in their individual growth and development would likely be attracted to someone who promises growth and support in intellectual, aesthetic, or self-actualization (becoming fully who our individual potential allows us to become) areas of life.
It may sound selfish at first glance but we really do date and mate on the basis of what we get out of it (or how our needs are met).
The Social Exchange Theory and its rational choice formula clarify the selection process even further.
Maximize Rewards-Minimize Costs=Date or Mate Choice.
When we interact with potential dates and mates we run a mental balance sheet in our heads. She might think, "he’s tall, confident, funny, and friends with my friends." As she talks a bit more she might say, "But, he chews smokeless tobacco, only wants to party, and just flirted with another young women while we were still talking." The entire time we interact with potential dates and mates we evaluate them on their appearance, disposition, goals and aspirations, and other traits. This while simultaneously remembering how we rate and evaluate ourselves. Rarely do we seek out the best-looking person at the party unless we define ourselves as an even match for him or her. More often we rank and rate ourselves compared to others and as we size up and evaluate potentials we define the overall exchange rationally or in an economic context where we try to maximize our rewards while minimizing our losses.
The overall evaluation of the deal also depends to a great extent on how well we feel matched on racial and ethnic traits, religious background, social economic class, and age similarities. Truly the complexity of the date and mate selection process includes many obvious and some more subtle processes that you can understand for yourself. If you are single you can apply them to the date and mate selection processes you currently pursue.
Bernard Murstein wrote articles in the early 1970s where he tested his Stimulus-Value-Role Theory of marital choice. (See "Physical Attractiveness and Marital Choice" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 22(1), Apr 1972, 8-12 or "Who Will Marry Whom? Theories and Research in Marital Choice: New York; Springer, 1976 392 pages). To Murstein the exchange is mutual and dependent upon the subjective attractions and the subjective assets and liabilities each individual brings to the relationship. The Stimulus is the trait (usually physical) that draws your attention to the person. After time is spent together dating or hanging out, Values are compared for compatibility and evaluation of "maximization of Rewards while minimization of costs is calculated. If after time and relational compatibility supports it, the pair may choose to take Roles which typically include: exclusive dating, cohabitation, engagement, or marriage. Figure 4 shows how the Stimulus-Values-Role theory might overlap with a couple’s development of intimacy over increased time and increased interaction.
Figure 4: Depiction of Stimulus-Value-Role Theory with Intimacy and over Time & Interaction
How do strangers transition from not even knowing one another to eventually cohabiting or marrying together? From the very first encounter, two strangers begin a process that either excludes one another as potential dates or mates or includes them and begins the process of establishing intimacy. Intimacy is the mutual feeling of acceptance, trust, and connection to another person, even with the understanding of personal faults of the individual. In other words, intimacy is the ability to become close to one another, to accept one another as is, and eventually to feel accepted by the other. Intimacy is not sexual intercourse, although sexual intercourse may be one of many expressions of intimacy. When two strangers meet they have a stimulus that alerts one or both to take notice of the other.
I read a book by Judith Wallerstein (1921-2012) (see Wallerstein and Blakesley 1995 The Good Marriage) where one woman was on a date with a guy and overheard another man laughing like Santa Clause might laugh. She asked her date to introduce her and that began the relationship which would become her decades-long marriage to the Santa Clause laughing guy. I’ve had people tell me personally that in their relationship, there was a subtle connection that just felt safe, like a reunion with a long lost friend when they first met one another. I’ve had many indicate that they thought the other was so very hot and good looking, "and I couldn’t wait to get burned" one female student said.
In the stimulus stage some motivation at the physical, social, emotional, intellectual or spiritual level sparks interests and the interaction begins. Over time and with increased interaction, two people may make that journey of values comparisons and contrasts which inevitably includes or excludes the other. The more time and interaction that is accompanied by increased trust and acceptance of one’s self and the other, the more the intimacy and probability of a long-term relationship.
Even though Figure 4 shows that a smooth line of increasing intimacy can occur, it does not always occur so smoothly nor so predictably. As the couple reaches a place where a bond has developed they establish patterns of commitment and loyalty which initiates the roles listed in Figure 4. The list of roles is listed in increasing order of level of commitment yet does not indicate any kind of predictable stages the couple would be expected to pursue. In other words, some couples may take the relationship only as far as exclusive dating which is the mutual agreement to exclude others from dating either individual in the relationship. Another couple may eventually cohabit or marry.
It should be mentioned that what you’d look for in a date is often different from what you might look for in a spouse. Dates are temporary adventures where good looks, fun personality, entertainment capacity, and even your social status by being seen in public with him or her are considered important. Dates are short-term and can be singular events or a few events. Many college students who have dated more than once develop "A Thing" or a relationship noticed by the individuals and their friends as either beginning or having at least started, but not quite having a defined destination. These couples eventually hold a DTR. A DTR means a moment where the two individuals Define The Relationship openly to determine if both want to include each other in a specific goal-directed destination (IE: exclusive dating) or if it’s better for everyone if the relationship ends.
Ever had one of these? Many describe them as awkward. I think awkward is an understatement. A DTR is extremely risky in terms of how much of one ’s self has to be involved and in terms of how vulnerable it makes each other feel. In the TV series The Office, Jim and Pam experience a number of DTRs that early on in the relationship ended with either or both of them wanting more closeness and commitment, but neither of them being capable of making it happen. The Office is fiction, but the relationships clearly reflect some of the human experience in an accurate way.
Notice that Jim and Pam were from the same part of the country, had very many social and cultural traits in common, and both met in a setting where they could see each other on a regular basis and have the opportunity to go through the SVR process. Homogamy, propenquity, need matching, compatibility, and eventually commitment all applied in their story together. The cultural similarities of a couple cannot be emphasized enough in this discussion.
Many of those living in the United States share common mainstream cultural traits, regardless of ancestral heritage or ethnic background, date and mate selection occurs for nearly all members of society. Table 2 shows a list of cultural and ethnic background traits that influence how the inclusion and exclusion decisions are made, depending on how similar or different each individual defines themselves to be in relation to the other. Many who teach relationship skills in cross-cultural or trans-racial relationships focus on the similarity principle.
Table 2: Cultural and Ethnic Background Traits
- Language
- Religion
- Traditions & Holidays
- Lifestylesand self-identification
- Workplace skills
- Educational aspirations and achievements
- Age similarity
- Physical appearance (skin color, facial features, & body shape and size)
- Food preferences
- Political leanings
- Economic similarities
- Common shared experiences (IE: Military background)
- Family cultural similarities and compatibilities
- Physical attractiveness similarities
- Hobbies and interest similarities
- Life goals similarities
- Others...
The Similarity Principle states that the more similar two people perceive themselves to be, the more likely their relationship will continue and succeed. Notice the word, "perceive;" because actual similarities are not as critical as an individual’s belief that there are common characteristics. Also, certain individuals value one background trait over others. They may be more willing to overlook or ignore differences in traits which are not as similar.
In the Movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" (my wife and I saw this one three times together in theaters) the Greek-American woman who was the main character meets a strikingly handsome professional man from a different ethnic background. Much of the difficulty she had in including him as a mate was her perception that her cultural and family background was unattractive and could not be desirable to potential mates. He was deeply attracted to her family because it filled his need for family connection, tradition, and support. He changed his religion, learned the Greek culture, and adopted her family as his surrogate family.
In real life, most don’t make such profound concessions when choosing a mate. The relationship is less likely to develop if there are few or no common traits and more likely if there are more common traits, especially in the areas of commonality that the individuals define as being very important.
Dating often turns into exclusive or boyfriend-girlfriend type relationships. These relationships are crucial in the lives of young adults because they allow each other to gain experience in the daily routines of intimate relationships. They don’t always develop into a long-term relationship, but practicing in healthy relationships is far more valuable than the grieving from breaking up. There are a few key guidelines if you need to break up. These make sense but also have a tremendous amount of literature and science to back them up.
First, before you break up, do a maximize rewards and minimize cost—pros and cons evaluation so you can make sure that breaking up is the best choice you can make. Second, break up clearly so there is no ambiguity about where the relationship might be headed. Third, avoid hanging out together after the break up. I know you see this in TV shows and I know you have friends who probably still hang out after the break up. But don’t. It’s the drama that fills soap operas, 911 calls, and evening dramatic shows on TV. And remember that a woman is more likely to be physically attacked by her intimate partner than by any other person (even strangers).
There are some rules that can be summarized about how we include dates or mates in our pool of eligibles. Figure 4 shows that rule #1 is Exogamy. Exogamy is the tendency to pair off with or marry someone outside of your own familial groups.
Figure 5: Five Rules of Date and Mate Selection
Most people follow this rule with little or no formal instruction. Rule #2 is to find a compatible person who can have their needs be met by you and your needs be met by him or her. Rule #3 is to select someone who is a good find, great deal, or maximized reward, minimized costs formula. You are deserving of a date or mate who will reinforce your value as an individual and who will be pleasing to you.
Rule #4 is to maximize homogamy and look for commonalities that will smooth out the daily adjustments of the relationship. I doubt you’d ever find a perfect match on all of these traits, but make sure you find a good match of complimentary personality traits and background characteristics.
Rule# 5 is very important. You must learn to discern trouble and danger in a date or mate. Intimate violence is the worst and most deadly violence especially for women. Their dates, mates, spouses, and life partners are more likely to cause them violent harm than will any other category of relationship in their lives. Figure 5 provides some criteria to identify as red flags, warning signs, or danger signs.
Figure 6: Risky, Dangerous, and Otherwise Unhealthy Traits in Potential Dates and Mates
The risky and dangerous traits you might see in a potential date or mate can be early warning signals to raise red flags. In fairness, the presence of any one of these may just indicate a bad day (SOURCE). Some potential dates and mates are predatorial. That means they search for types of people they can manipulate and control and try to pair off with them. The presence of a few of these could raise your suspicions enough to become a savvy shopper, discriminating consumer, or even a detective of danger signs. Remember, that when dating and selecting a mate overcautious discernment is justified. The Center for Disease Control has some valuable resources online for understanding and preventing teen dating violence (see SOURCE)
Most people never experience the extreme dangers of dating. For most it’s more of an emotional risk than a safety risk. Many chose to marry and do so more often in the warmer months of the year than in the other months. When relationships form and engagements are made and agreed upon, an entire social experience is initiated where new social roles and networks begin to unfold. Engaged people announce their plans to family and friends and by so doing initiate a few processes within the social community of each fiancé.
Announcements of the engagement begin the process of exclusion of others. All other potential suitors and dates are excluded from the pool of eligibles while exclusive monogamy begins in almost every aspect of the couple’s lives. She often wears a ring that ranges from $2-10,000 US dollars. That ring deters most because it symbolizes her agreement to marry her fiancé. The couple often formalizes their wedding plans in newspaper, mailed out invitations to the reception, and/or online announcements. In-laws are people you become related to by virtue of marrying into your fiancé’s family network. I often joke with my students that you get in-laws and out-laws when you marry. Not all in-laws will get along with the couple as well as might be wished.
The creation of extended kin ties is crucial to a successful engagement. To some degree in-laws are expected to at least be compatible with the new family member (fiancé) and if possible in another degree to establish close relational bonds. Engagement also signifies to the couple the ultimate direction of their courtship. Marriage and the merging of: social networks, belongings, monies, physical intimacy, rights, children, and many other things becomes the focus. Unfortunately many couples focus heavily on the reception and that becomes a great source of stress which they must adapt to or be destroyed by if they’re not careful to learn to face stressors in a united manner. Engagement provides the couple with opportunities to practice being married, in many different aspects of the relationship.
Most engagements end in marriage. But, some end in a breaking up event where the marriage is cancelled. Sometimes couples realize that they were not as compatible as they originally thought themselves to be. Sometimes, they are geographically separated by various circumstances and find that their commitment did not withstand the test of time and space. Other times in-laws and extended family incompatibilities work against the marriage. And finally sometimes, people just fall out of love or lose interest.
For those who are searching for a spouse the market is an uneven playing field. The United States has what social scientist call a "marriage Squeeze." A Marriage Squeeze is a demographic imbalance in the number of males to females among those considered to be of marrying ages. China passed a very strict law in 1979 allowing only one child per couple. This has created a dramatic marriage squeeze, "Already, 41 million bachelors will not have women to marry. If nothing is done to change this trend, Poston noted, by 2020 there will be 55 million extra boys in China." (Retrieved 20 November 2013 from Dudley L. Poston Jr., Eugenia Conde, and Bethany DeSalvo, "China's Unbalanced Sex Ratio at Birth, Millions of Excess Bachelors and Societal Implications," Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 6, no. 4 (2011): 314-20. Until November, 2013 China had the most strict fertility policy in the world and it is often excluded from the rest of Asia in most official reports (see http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/china-census-excess-males.aspx 20 Nov 2013). That policy was relaxed back in 2015, but the cost of living is so high and the average wage so low in China, many parents only desire 1 child. China is perhaps the most intense example of the dangers of “over-restricting” fertility. The extremely strict “One-Child-Only-Policy” China passed in 1979 created some demographically challenging current and future circumstances for China (see SOURCE).
Since so many Chinese men have no one to date much less marry, there are other social problems that ripple through the demographics of their society. For example, in the past, Chinese elderly were cared for in what was commonly a “4-2-2 home.” But, in the last 40+ years a challenging problem emerged called the “4-2-1” crisis. China’s life expectancy has been on the rise. Typically, the retired elderly (a Husband and wife of each adult married child=4) move in the same home with their son and his wife (they=2). Then as the grandchild is born, raised and marries (Grandchild + Spouse=2) they became default caregivers to their aging parents and all of them would have been caregivers to their elderly grandparents. But today the 4 grandparents move into their married 2 adult’s home and only have 1 grandchild and it has become a significant “4-2-1” problem which is getting worse in coming years.
Here is how. After the most severe antinatalist policy ever enacted by a modern government in modern times was put into place, female babies became less and less common. Many expecting parents had an early ultrasound performed and often aborted female fetuses in hopes of having their 1 allowable child be a male. There are as many as 30 million more males in China as of 2020 who have no female their age to marry. There is or was an animation of population pyramids for China on the Wikipedia page linked above (directly linked here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#/media/File:China_Pop_Pyramid_Forecast.gif ). Even though China legalized more than 1 child starting in 2016, couples are not very motivated to have another. One award winning journalist Mei Fong wrote a book addressing the many Chinese crises occurring from that One Child Only Policy. She wrote it after the policy reversal passed in 2015 and in-place in 2016. Basically, she stated:
"The reason China is doing this right now is because they have too many men, too many old people, and too few young people. They have this huge crushing demographic crisis as a result of the one-child policy. And if people don't start having more children, they're going to have a vastly diminished workforce to support a huge aging population."[75] China's ratio is about five working adults to one retiree; the huge retiree community must be supported, and that will dampen future growth, according to Fong (Fong, M. “One Child: The Story of China's Most Radical Experiment” by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (January 5, 2016), pages 272) and see SOURCE
There is also a phenomenon called the Marriage Gradient. The Marriage Gradient is the tendency for women to marry a man slightly older and slightly taller while men tend to marry a woman slightly more attractive. From the data I extracted and presented above you can see that in the U.S. 2018 there are also more never married males than females. For example, American Community Survey online data portal, showed that there were 1,289,586 extra males (ages 18-24) and another 2,675,437 extra males ages 25-34 than females in each of the age categories (Data extracted from table “SEX BY MARITAL STATUS BY AGE FOR THE POPULATION 15 YEARS AND OVER” retrieved 6 August 2020 from SOURCE Since women tend to want to marry a man slightly older the marriage market is squeezed because there are too few females for all the available males. In fact, this leads some men to marry women 6 years or older; women who already have children; and women 4-6 years younger.
As you've read throughout this chapter you have learned a great deal bout how we (perhaps even You) include or exclude people into or away from your pool of eligibles. In the latter part, I may have over emphasized the "Buyer beware" approach that I wanted you to have as you move through the data and mate selection market.
Fear is not the suggestion reaction to dating based on what we’ve discussed here from the literature. Enjoy dating and mate selection. It is a wonderful time of your life that can be the best and simultaneously the worst of times. It may help for you to understand a bit more about yourself so that you can develop a strategy in being proactive and focused in your date and/or mate selection experiences.
We’ve included four assessments to help you better understand what your ideal mate might be like; how you met your current (Past partner); How you are attracted to people; and How healthy your break ups tend to be.
What Do I Look For in My Ideal Mate?
In the items below rank the traits you would like to have in your "ideal mate." Put "A" beside the items which you think are the most important traits. Put "B" beside the items which you desire if possible. Put "C" beside the items you think are not really that important. You may put more than one A, B, or C in each category.
Physical appearance:
- ___Attractive face
- ___Attractive hands
- ___Attractive hair
- ___Attractive figure
- ___Attractive smile
- ___Muscular build
- ___Taller than me
- ___Sexy
- ___Thin-med. build
- ___Med.-large build
- ___Healthy teeth
- ___Nice eyes
- ___Long Legs
- ___Fair complexion
- ___Stylish dresser
- ___As attractive as me
- Other's _______________________________________________________________
Personality/Disposition
- ___Moral
- ___Unselfish
- ___Courteous
- ___Honest
- ___Hard working
- ___Serious
- ___Assertive
- ___Kind
- ___Friendly
- ___Romantic
- ___Acts natural
- ___Interesting
- ___Generous
- ___Social
- ___Creative
- ___Smart
- ___Strong willed
- ___Respectful
- ___Faithful
- ___Playful
- ___Stable
- ___Nice
- ___Confident
- ___Energetic
- ___Wild
- ___Leader
- ___Musical
- ___Warm
- ___Mature
- ___Passionate
- ___Gentle
- ___Candid
- ___Exciting
- ___Clean
- ___Funny
- ___Committed
- ___Open minded
- ___Appreciative
- ___Comfortable
- ___Soft spoken
- ___Independent
- ___Dependable
- Other's _______________________________________________________________
Communication/Relationship Skills:
- ___In tune with own feelings
- ___Shows emotions
- ___Listens well
- ___Understands me
- ___Doesn't blame others
- ___Tells stories
- ___Can handle group situations
- ___Is interesting
- ___Tells jokes
- ___Gives many compliments
- ___Lets me talk too
- ___Can handle disagreements
- ___Exudes confidence
- ___Makes eye contact
- ___Touches and is touchable
- ___Can self-disclose
- ___Doesn't analyze me
- ___Is interested in my life
- ___Accepts me for who I am
- ___Noncompetitive with me
- ___Deals with anger well
- ___Gets along well with parents
- ___Can love and be loved
- ___Sets boundaries well
- ___Knows how to get to the heart of the matter
- ___Can take a compliment
- Other's _______________________________________________________________
Interests:
- ___Enjoys family
- ___Enjoys sports
- ___Enjoys music
- ___Enjoys the arts
- ___Enjoys career
- ___Enjoys outdoors
- ___Enjoys parties
- ___Enjoys smoking
- ___Enjoys drinking
- ___Enjoys T.V.
- ___Enjoys dancing
- ___Enjoys remodeling
- ___Enjoys religion
- ___Enjoys work
- ___Enjoys museums
- ___Enjoys finishing things
- ___Enjoys health
- ___Enjoys sex
- ___Enjoys eating out
- ___Enjoys making money
- ___Enjoys shopping
- ___Enjoys politics
- ___Enjoys planning
- ___Enjoys learning
- ___Enjoys setting goals and attaining them
- ___Enjoys hearing about my day
- Other's _______________________________________________________________