Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men

Ahh the age old question. You see a drop dead gorgeous gal with a mediocre looking guy and you wonder (woman and man) “how did that happen?” There are of course the easy stereotypical reasonings- oh he has money, perhaps she is a high class call girl? But people, maybe for women looks just aren’t everything. Okay, forget the maybes, women definitely aren’t sold on looks alone. But there may be a strategy to that as well. Here’s an article I spotted on my favorite source- Yahoo News, about it. I just cut and pasted the most interesting parts but you can read the full article here http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080410/sc_livescience/whybeautifulwomenmarrylessattractivemenews.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080410/sc_livescience/whybeautifulwomenmarrylessattractivemen
Jeanna BrynerLiveScience Staff WriterLiveScience.com Thu Apr 10, 11:25 AM ET
Women seeking a lifelong mate might do well to choose the guy a notch below them in the looks category. New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.
The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband….
The new study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, reveals looks continue to matter beyond that initial attraction, though in a different way.
Supportive spouses
McNulty's team assessed 82 couples who had married within the previous six months and had been together for nearly three years prior to tying the knot. Participants were on average in their early to mid-20s.
Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses' issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often….
A group of trained "coders" rated the facial attractiveness of each spouse on a scale from 1 to 10, with the perfect 10 representing the ultimate babe. About a third of the couples had a more attractive wife, a third a more attractive husband and the remaining partners showed matching looks.
Trophy wives
Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking
The finding "seems very reasonable," said Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at MIT's Program in Media Arts and Sciences and Sloan School of Management. "Men are very sensitive to women's attractiveness. Women seem to be sensitive to men's height and salary," said Ariely, who was not involved in the recent study.
In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands.
"The husband who's less physically attractive than his wife is getting something more than maybe he can expect to get," McNulty told LiveScience. "He's getting something better than he's providing at that level. So he's going to work hard to maintain that relationship."
Men who are more attractive than their partners would theoretically have access to partners who are more attractive than their current spouses, McNulty said. The "grass could be greener" mentality could make these men less satisfied and less committed to maintain the marriage….

I found this article to be sad but true. We women may desire our Brad Pitt/ Terrance Howard look-alike but who wants the upkeep and constant worry that they'll find somebody hotter? I just don’t feel women get that “grass is greener” mentality. And the thought of “I can do better” when it comes to looks might appear early on in the relationship but it surely doesn’t stay. Because we ultimately know that a good looking bum won’t get us anywhere! But an “average” (because aren't looks in the eye of the beholder?) guy who is supportive is the best thing in the world!

Can't Touch This- Worst Rapper's of All Time

While I am HARDLY a Rap Aficionado I found this list to be quite amusing, although I didn't agree with everything. Here's the link to the full list from Yahoo Music http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/listoftheday/2977/the-25-worst-rappers-of-all-time

but I'll just post the top 10. Although I will note that Nelly, Chingy (some of my fremale friends who love him might be angered here but not me!), and Master P made it on the list, however, how did Shaquille O'Neal not get in the top 10? (He was number 11)

10) Marky Mark And The Funky Bunch:
Okay, I may have Roger Rabbitted to this tune and still think Mark Whalberg is a bit of a hottie but yeah, he deserves to be on this list.

9) K-Fed:
He should have never got a record deal...

8) Will Smith:
Now I have to disagree here. Okay, Will Smith is no master emcee but he had way too many hits to be put in the top 10 (albiet half of those hits weren't written by him- shall we put NAS up here for writing Getting Jiggy Wit It for Mr. Smith?)

7) Mr. T:
Who knew?

6) Fred Durst (Limp Bizkit):
I actually liked some songs of Limp Bizkit but agree Fred's no rapper.

5) Puff Daddy:
Thank you for putting him on the list! He sells hit records but can hardly rap or sing. I dub him the male Madonna (because although I love Madge, she is no singing diva). He proves you don't have to have a lot of vocal talent to make hits. Now if only someone would talk over his songs like he does on all the records of his artist...

4) Dee Dee King (The Ramones):
Uhm... Who?

3) Brian Austin Green: Okay he was a cutie on 90210 and still hot on the Terminator series but looks only gets you so far. He really had no business rapping!

2) MC Hammer:
Haters, I liked MC Hammer back in the day. He doesn't deserve to be this high on the list. Is it because he went broke and had a wack wardrobe?

1) Vanilla Ice:
Whether he deserves it or not, whose going to argue?

Watch Out Now!

According to the Associated Press and Yahoo News, polls are showing that Republican’s are no longer the underdog for the race for the white house. With all the in fighting with the Democrats, McCain is winning back unhappy republicans, some independents and even some democrats.

The Horror! There is nothing we can do but I believe two things should happen to help the Democrats have a greater chance or get back to where they were months ago. There needs to be a democratic winner soon so that they can start campaigning against McCain. They can’t really afford to wait until the end of the summer when McCain already has a jump and pretty much has allowed Clinton and Obama to do most of the mudslinging for him while he goes, for the most part, untouched. I know Clinton and Obama have made remarks concerning McCain’s suitability as leader but if they keep focusing on each other, more importantly if the media keeps just focusing on their verbal battles against one another, the public will continue to get turned off by them. I’m already now feeling like a kid who has her ears covered while mommy and daddy fight!

The second thing that needs to happen is that who ever loses needs to kiss and make up with the winner to ensure that their supporters don’t run to McCain or just not vote if their democratic candidate doesn’t win. Therefore, if Clinton loses she must make a statement that lets the public know that she fully supports Barak and thinks all those who supported her should vote for him. And she must do this often enough and make it known that he is a good leader in spite of what she said during campaigning and focus on how McCain won’t cut it. Then her supporters, hopefully, won’t run off and refuse to vote or vote McCain in retaliation. Same goes for Barak. Basically the two candidates need to restore their images and chop down McCain’s but that won’t happen if they continue to battle so someone needs to concede soon!

Are We Meant to DAte? (AKA- Is Dating Natural?)

My sister brought this thought up and I told her I would steal it for my blog so...

Okay, so you’ve got your dating books, dating experts, matchmakers, dating websites, dating events (i.e. speed dating) and the ever popular dating reality TV shows. All that to say: We need help to date.
So if we need sooo much help in the dating world, are we really fighting against what the “natural” way should be- your old school match making or arranged marriages? Do your parents or the wise older lady around the corner know what’s best for you? They sure seemed to in the days of Jane Austin (and obviously way before) and in certain customs this is just the way of life. In reality if humans have been living for thousands of years, then, in the span of things, dating is a relatively new area of life.

There isn’t, as far as I know and the people I know who are much more familiar with it, much of any mention of dating in the bible. No advice on what you should and shouldn’t do. No Commandments to break. Yes, I know, we didn’t have cars back in the day either but it doesn’t mean we weren’t meant to drive them but still you can’t help but think there’s something in this whole “dramas of dating” that keeps us perplexed at the whole situation.

Not to say that match making and arranged marriages don’t have their problems but I’m reluctant to say that independent dating has resulted in such great outcomes (what with the divorce rate so high). I’m simply wondering if the need for so much assistance in dating and the drama that comes with the dating territory is a result of our unsuccessful attempts at a process that we really don’t have any business being in.

Yes, we have free will and aren’t some primitive animal that simply finds a mate whose scent we like (at least I hope not) but a little old school help might have been a better method in terms of finding a suitable mate for marriage. You’re looking for good husband/wife material but a match maker may actually know what that entails precisely. We get caught up in physical chemistry but the match maker knows that won’t sustain us. And if two parties are willing to be hooked up by a match maker that’s already saying (hopefully) that those parties are serious at finding a sustaining relationship. The match maker knows both parties and what would be needed, so you’re coming to the table with the idea that if the match maker saw something in the other you should give this guy/girl a deeper look yourself.

Dating is simply cutting out the middle man (the match maker) but that middle man was important and on our own are we just lost in a dating storm? It seems, maybe, yes. But then again, I need a little middle ground here. I don’t care how fabulous the guy is, if you’re trying to match me up with Flava Flav (yes he seems to be my punching bag) then I’m not budging AT ALL!

I don’t know, it just seems lately that a lot of people are getting tired of the whole dating game and willing to let someone else (even if just a dating site) do their “dirty work” for a while. So it seems, in the fight between dating vs. match making, dating is taking one too many hits down for many of us.

The Look of Love...

Okaay- check this article out from Yahoo News I read yesterday. For those pressed with time, I highlighted main sections in red.

By Avril Ormsby
LONDON, April 9 (Reuters Life!) - Members of the opposite sex can spot whether someone is after a one-night stand or something more permanent just by looking at their face, scientists said on Wednesday.
On men, a square jaw, large nose and small eyes are more likely to betray the look of lust than of love.
Women found men with softer features more likely to opt for commitment.
But the Durham University-led research found that while men can judge whether a woman is footloose-and-fancy-free or not, there is no common facial detail to explain it.
About 700 heterosexual people took part in the survey carried out by Durham, St. Andrews and Aberdeen universities.
In one study, 72 percent of the 153 participants correctly identified the sexual attitudes of a group of men and women in their 20s after being shown photographs or facial images.
Published in the journal "Evolution and Human Behaviour," the research also showed that women who were open to short-term sexual relationships were usually seen as more attractive.
They tended to have wide eyes and large lips, such as the actress Angelina Jolie.
Women were usually interested in men who appeared to be more likely to want a long-term relationship.
The research tended to confirm earlier findings which found that women see masculine men as more likely to be unfaithful and worse at parenting.
The men and women also tended to opt for complete opposites.
Dr Lynda Boothroyd, from Durham University's Psychology Department, said: "This shows that these initial impressions may be part of how we assess potential mates -- or potential rivals -- when we first meet them.
"These will then give way over time to more in-depth knowledge of that person as you get to know them better, and may change with age."
Dr Ben Jones, from the University of Aberdeen's Face Research Lab, said: "Lots of previous studies have shown that people can judge a lot about a person from their face, including things like health and even some personality traits like introversion, but this really is the first study to show that people are also sensitive to subtle facial signals about the type of romantic relationships that others might enjoy."



Alright now, so some of this could make sense. If a guy looks tough and prison buff women are less likely to look at him like husband material. And if the woman looks like a live version of Jessica Rabbit I guess I could understand a guy thinking she’s no modest mary. But still, talk about judging a book by its cover! So if you’re lucky enough to look like Angelina Jolie watch out for guys thinking you’re going to be up for a one night stand. Dispelling any thoughts that pretty girls don’t have it tough in the dating scene.

And in the alternative the study suggest guys with “softer features” are more the commitment type. Soo, what are male soft features? So if you look like say, Orlando Bloom, you are marriage material? Pretty boys come to mind but then they get the rap of being players.


And if you look like the Rock or Vin Disel are you S.O.L. with many women wanting you as more than a sexual partner? Seems doubtful.


This study is disturbing to me and can open up so many stereotypical doors. The crazy part is that many of the viewers guessed right about the sexual willingness of the people. But it seems wrong to suggest that the way one looks predetermines such matters. What’s next? Race?

It’s Just One of those Days

I have some gripes today that I thought I HAD to share:

Don’t Pick Up the Phone:
Me: Hello?
Random Dude (RD): Hey how are you, Cat.
Me: Uhm, fine…Who is this?
RD: Jon, Joe, Rick (some nickname)
Me: Oh… Where do I know you from?
RD: Here, there, everywhere (okay, not the exact words but something universal or something so vague I still am not too sure).
Me: Ohhhkaaay. Thinks to self- But seriously who is this guy? What does he want from me?
And cut
So, this has happened to me in text, email and phone format on several occasions. Some person who I met or knew who I gave my number to ions ago calls me and picks things up like I just spoke to them the other day. Then they get a bit insulted when I don’t remember them. Well… if I haven’t spoken to you since before Dave Chappelle went on his mecca then you should assume you need to start from scratch again. Surprising, I know, but I actually know a lot of people and can’t, for some crazy reason, remember every Tom, Dick, and Harry that I’ve met in the past. And I know at some point we probably did communicate and were cool but we fell off and went our own ways and I, in an effort to save space/memory, deleted your number or email. So when you call me a century later I don’t know who you are.

But here’s the deal. There are people I haven’t spoken to in ages whose numbers I keep. The people I delete are usually people I 1) never got close enough to to program their numbers in my cell phone or 2) deleted because I have no intentions of ever talking to them again. But I guess I kind of screw myself over because then I can’t be weary of them should they call again. Friends I know do the whole replace their name with “Do Not Answer” or “A Jerk is Calling” etc. This way they know that whoever the caller is you should not answer. I need to get on that bandwagon because I’ve fallen victim to the mystery caller/texter/emailer on too many occasions.
And then I have to ask myself, Self, why have you given your number to so many crazy people that this keeps happening to you? I mean, I have a fake name and all to get by the crazies but yet they keep busting in!
Hear ye, Hear ye, A new rule will be put in place in Cat’s dating world- Don’t delete numbers, just give guys brief descriptions so you will never be a phone/email victim again!

Other stuff that bugs me:

Car honkers.
I hate people who get mad at me for moving in front of them AFTER I signal. I’m just doing what I said I was going to do so don’t get mad and honk your car. I could have been ignorant and just cut in front of you with no warning. I made sure there was plenty of space before I moved in front of you so if you decide to speed up all too late don’t be angry. It’s called sharing the road you bamma! I will not give other drivers the finger, I will not give other drivers the finger...

This weather
I am over it! Down with the cold, on with the shinning of the sun. This was a punk winter (I got no snow days from work!) we should at least get some early spring like weather. I am trying to retire my pea coat. Let’s make it happen!

But something I'm thankful for:

My shows are back on TV! I am gearing up for my law and order - SVU and my Grey's Anatomy! Yippee

Sex in the City: Can you relate?

Sex in the City is one of my all time favorite shows in the whole entire world! I am a die hard fan and am seriously trying to win tickets to the NY premier of the movie in May. The show really just resonated with me, which is odd because I really don’t like too many shows that aren’t diverse, yet I was all over this one. (As well as the Golden Girls, which to me was the original, albeit geriatric version, of 4 single women living life)

Perhaps it was due to the characters being so relatable. Not necessarily their lives (I’m no rich white woman in my mid thirties) but their experiences and emotions. I got where they were. And I think many women did. We got Charlotte’s frustration when she’d been dating for so long and didn’t get why she hadn’t found the one yet. Or to some respects Carrie’s addiction to shoes. Although I never quite said “Hello lover” to Manolos in the store window (more like Hell No when I saw the price). I have given a fond pat to my Bandolinos in my closet. And we’ve all met a Mr. Big type or the guy who got to us like he did Carrie. And maybe we weren’t broken up with on a post it note but we might have encountered the guy who “disappeared” or as I like to say “died”.

Okay, yes, the characters could be a bit exaggerated in their behaviors but at the base we could all identify with at least one of them. They all believed in love in their own ways.

Charlotte, willing to go the distance to reach love and her vision of what it should be.



Miranda and her walls and reluctance to rely on a guy but eventual submission to the idea of love.






Samantha and her “date like a guy” mentality but who, underneath it all, respected the idea of love for herself.



And Carrie, following unconventional paths in love but fiercely passionate, giving of herself and not afraid of her vulnerability.

I often wondered who I was most like. Ideally Carrie, simply because she was the lead of course. But a few reality checks later and suggestions from friends I came to realize, a bit to my horror, that I was Charlotte with a dash of Miranda. And while I have not taken to finding “Mr. Right” as a part time job, resume and all, and don’t think I can change religions for a guy, I do recognize the similarities. I want the fairy tale, but like Miranda, don’t believe the hype. Hard way to be I know but I think it’s a world many women are stuck in especially as we age. At 20 we want the proverbial knight in shinning armor coming to our rescue on a white horse. By 40 this knight might have turned into a dude with a running car and all his teeth. It’s real people!

If there was anything the show taught me is that no matter how you look or where you are love does not come easy or come in the package you thought it might. Further, bad things happen to good people in love and the key is not to take it personally. I liked this show not just because I could identify with the situations the characters were in but because the writers thought them up, perhaps based on reality. I wasn’t alone! This further came about in the related book ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’ brought about from a Sex in the City episode and soon to be a movie itself. It was amazing to me how many others had been through similar or worse experiences in the dating arena. It was a comfort to me because most of my friends at the time were already in relationships and I had no one to really talk to about the “trials and tribulations” of dating life. Most of my attached friends looked at my dating life as a cautionary tale “beware the single life and hold your man tight or else this might happen to you kiddies, muhaha!”.

It was only recently in my life that I encountered friends who I could swap “war stories” with and it made me realize how important a good base of friends was to talk to. One who contributed in your life, shared and offered advice and differing opinions. See Sex in the City wasn’t just a show about finding love in the big city but it was a great story of friendship. Not many people have that kind of close bond. And although it was simply fiction that was the real heart of the series. I sometimes need a little Miranda to reality check my Charlotte. Because if love is a battlefield (as Pat Benatar would say- love love love that song) then we shouldn’t go it alone.

Remembering on this day of mourning.

Just taking a pause to remember the man and the dream. His dream is still alive but not yet finished. Lets do our best to live up to his/our cause.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

Martin Luther King Jr.

(January 15, 1929- April 4, 1968)

Rules of Attraction: Is there a science to the whole dating/liking/loving thing?

My gut reaction is a certifiable Whitney Huston “Hell to the no”. Back in the day my answer would have been yes. But things have changed. Meaning I’ve experienced, seen and heard too much. To put feelings into a certain controled science might be a sure fire way to end up driving yourself crazy, driving someone else crazy and ultimately missing out. But maybe I'm wrong?

May I mention I also used to drive friends mad when I tried to formulate steps to dating. I believed that there were stages and certain things should occur at every stage.
See I’m a planner and a deep thinker. I’m also hella indecisive. Sorry, I’m a Libra ya’ll (as Wyclef would say), can’t help it!

Anywho, the first guy I ever seriously dated was the subject of my over analytical thinking and I ended up breaking up with him only to realize that he was a pretty good guy. There was nothing really wrong with him. I just thought certain things were supposed to happen, certain feelings were supposed to manifest themselves at certain stages. I had to humble myself to ask for us to get back together. Glad I did because he still ranks as one of the best guys I’ve ever dated (and my longest relationship).

But did I learn from that mistake? Nope, I continued to analyze things I had no business analyzing to death. However, I made sure not to make moves too quickly the next time around. Yet, I still equated the “right guy for me” as the one who made my “heart skip a beat every time we meet”, who I fantasized about, who seemed to have all the same interest as me, who would appease my parents and friends, who made me want to call them every single day (note: I’m no phone addict), who "looked" like someone I'd date etc. Please don’t get me wrong. There is no doubt that some of this is good to have, some down right necessary but not all of it. But if it doesn't All happen does the math/science fall apart? Would you base your emotions on whether all those things happened (ie: "this happened and this happened therefore I must be in love") What if those things didn't all happen and you still liked that person (and the person was no derilect or abuser) would you dump them anway (ie. "although this happened and this happened, this did not occurr therefore, I must not be in love and what I'm feeling is simply acid reflux", I don't know).

The next question, dear readers, is do you believe that there is a time when things should happen? Should you instantly be feeling the “I really really like him/her” jitters after the first 1-3 dates? When should you feel totally at ease with someone? 2 months?
When should you consider becoming exclusive? 3 months?
When should you profess your love for them? 6 months?

I used to think so. But all it takes is one person. Someone you meet after one date and begin to think about what your wedding would look like. Or someone you’ve known for a year, maybe off and on ,who one day, as in an epiphany, you realize is “the one” and all those love bugs come attacking you at once. They break all the rules and laws and you question whether that means you should run or ride the crazy train out with them.
My parents married after six months of dating and they were together for 20 years.
I’ve known people who dated for years and then get married. There is no time, no schedule, it just is.

Perhaps love is more like magic than a science. It is unpredictable, drives you crazy and can overwhelm you.
It’s uncontrolled and perhaps that’s the most disturbing piece about it all to those analytical people like me. It is the one area of your life where you can’t make things happen. And even more, it is the one area of your life that can truly be inconsistent.
In math, 1 +1 will pretty much always equal 2. If you follow the logic of math you will always reach one answer.

But in love one method can generate several answers and several equations can have the same outcome (I guess in certain forms of math this is possible) and if you stick to only one “equation” you might be missing out on more, ultimately, fulfilling opportunities.

I’m all for taking opportunities. Sometimes they don’t pan out but boy have I learned some great lessons about myself and people in general. I am now fully able (at least I think so) to determine the difference between what I want and what I need (you know the whole 20-80% notion, see early post on that) and what the hell needs to stay 100 yards or more from me.
I know that the guy who shares my joy of Neo Soul music isn't necessarily the guy I'm meant to commit to.
And that it may not be true that the guy who I accompany to baseball games even though I'm no fan isn't the one for me simply because we like different things.
It’s like that.
It is what it is.

But who am I to say? Just thinking out loud. Thoughts?