Society & Culture - Posted by Lauren Anderson-Sheffield on Friday, October 1, 2010 10:34 - 2 Comments 
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ...Most mates aren’t a perfect match
Most men would rather have female partners much slimmer than they really have, a new study finds. Most women are not satisfied, either, but contrary to men, while some would like slimmer mates, others prefer bigger ones. (Credit: iStockphoto)
U. SHEFFIELD (UK) — When it comes to a partner’s preference for body shape and size, there’s often a big gap between real versus ideal.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
New research from the University of Sheffield and the University of Montpellier in France finds that our actual partners are of a different height, weight, and body mass index than those we would ideally choose. Details are reported this week in the journal PLoS ONE.
The discrepancies between real mates and fantasies were often larger for women than for men, the study shows.
Most men would rather have female partners much slimmer than they really have. Most women are not satisfied, either, but contrary to men, while some would like slimmer mates, others prefer bigger ones.
Human mating preferences are increasingly being studied to understand what shapes our complex reproductive behavior. While previous studies have separately investigated ideal mate choice and actual pairing, this study was specifically conducted to compare them.
The researchers gathered data from one hundred heterosexual couples living in Montpellier, south of France. To measure preferences for body morphology, they used software which allowed the participant to easily modify the body shape of their ideal silhouette on a computer screen.
The researchers then compared ideal silhouettes obtained with the actual characteristics of the partners.
For the three morphological traits studied—height, weight, and body mass—men’s mating preferences were less different from their actual partner’s characteristics than females’ ones.
As the authors remark, the lower dissatisfaction observed for men in this study may be restricted to some physical traits, and results could be different for other traits such as personality, political opinion, or sense of humor that are also important in partner choice.
“Whether males or females win the battle of mate choice, it is likely for any trait, what we prefer and what we get, differs quite significantly,” says Alexandre Courtiol from the University of Sheffield. “This is because our ideals are usually rare or unavailable and also because both sexes express preferences while biological optimum can differ between them.”
More news from the University of Sheffield: www.shef.ac.uk/mediacentre/
Please wait
2 Comments
pat a thomas
Emmet
The sample size is too small for me to take seriously.
This study is very suspect. As an example, this phrase: ” the lower dissatisfaction observed for men in this study ,” the term “dissatisfaction” used here makes a lot of unstated assumptions. Because the bodies of the research study’s subjects’ mates do not match chosen ideal criteria – probably narowly defined and limited by the research design – does not automatically indicate “dissatisfaction.” There are inumrable variables that are involved in determining ideal mate bodies. Some are personal beyond the scope of narrowly defined research design. For instance someone may be “fond” of the slight pooch around the middle of their mate because they identify it with the person they love and adore. That does not mean that they would choose the pooch to be an ideal body trait in a research study. Nor would they make it a criterion if for some reason they had to find another mate. That physical trait would have been specific to that relationship, and would not have been a source of “dissatisfaction.”
The premise of the whole study is suspect on impirical grounds and relevant variables do not seem to have been considered, much less recognized or acknowledged.