choosing your mate--intellectual or biological? (date, wife, long-term, marriage)

[twinkletwinkle22]

Biology rules so much of our lives and reproduction is the major reason for pair-bonding throughout history. Does biology rule? I will posit that it does, choosing the best mate for an individual. Of course in many countries only the male gets to choose (sometimes his family does the choosing).

Second part to the question: if a female gets her choice does she choose the best biological specimen (tall, strong, healthy) or does she opt for best provider (rich, older, family with money).

I see some people make the same choices on 2nd and 3rd marriages even if those weren't good choices for the 1st time. Does biology make those choices and they only THINK they make them?

Please answer:

1. What was MOST important to you in choosing your mate: sexual attraction or something else (what?)
2. Would you choose differently in a do-over (maybe you already had a do-over so did that work?)
3. Is long-term marriage unnecessary once children are grown?
4. Are you married now (how long), divorced, never married

My answers

1. 50% sexual attraction and 50% mental/personality
2. Do it again
3. People change over time so if they can support themselves they should choose what makes them happy
4. Married 30 years, together 40 years

Note: Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft died yesterday at 65. He never married even though I read he believed in romantic love. So a billionaire chose not to marry or reproduce (he was not unattractive). Am always fascinated by choices people make when they have unlimited choices.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22

choosing your mate--intellectual or biological?

How old when making the choice?
And how many mother in law types are involved in the decision?
And how do the assets:aspirations calculation work out?

[coschristi]

Truthfully; I should have been arranged in marriage.

[Chint]

Originally Posted by coschristi

Truthfully; I should have been arranged in marriage.

Arraigned!?

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Chint

Arraigned!?

She could never get enough evidence to arraign me.

[Ruth4Truth]

Paul Allen wasn't attractive?? Says who?! You have a lot to learn about attraction! Mainly--that attractiveness is in the eyes of the beholder, and people have all kinds of taste.

And why are you assuming that young & strong =/= a good provider, unless wealthy is also part of the package? I'm also not sure what you mean by "intellectual". While for some, a good intellectual match is important, there are also psychological/emotional factors, which play a very strong role. That often explains why people make the same mistakes over and over, in 2nd and 3rd marriage choices.

Another poorly-designed poll. Meh.

[Cape Cod Todd]

I think people that marry young do so for biological reasoning and then as their partner ages the sexual attraction fades and divorce looms.



I think that people that marry later in life do so for many reasons including the sexual attraction and they usually have a good head to know a good partner with positive characteristics.



1 50/50
2 I would marry my wife again
3 I find comfort in my marriage as I'm sure that others do. I think it is great that we can look back at trips and events and be content that we shared the experience together.

4 We have been hitched for 12 years.

[MinivanDriver]

Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22

Biology rules so much of our lives and reproduction is the major reason for pair-bonding throughout history. Does biology rule? I will posit that it does, choosing the best mate for an individual. Of course in many countries only the male gets to choose (sometimes his family does the choosing).

Second part to the question: if a female gets her choice does she choose the best biological specimen (tall, strong, healthy) or does she opt for best provider (rich, older, family with money).

I see some people make the same choices on 2nd and 3rd marriages even if those weren't good choices for the 1st time. Does biology make those choices and they only THINK they make them?

Please answer:

1. What was MOST important to you in choosing your mate: sexual attraction or something else (what?)
2. Would you choose differently in a do-over (maybe you already had a do-over so did that work?)
3. Is long-term marriage unnecessary once children are grown?
4. Are you married now (how long), divorced, never married

My answers

1. 50% sexual attraction and 50% mental/personality
2. Do it again
3. People change over time so if they can support themselves they should choose what makes them happy
4. Married 30 years, together 40 years

Note: Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft died yesterday at 65. He never married even though I read he believed in romantic love. So a billionaire chose not to marry or reproduce (he was not unattractive). Am always fascinated by choices people make when they have unlimited choices.

Oh, my God. You're not really using this criteria are you? As in checking off the boxes or running someone's attributes through a spreadsheet? Yikes.

It's not biological. It's not intellectual. It's visceral. It is just listening to the thousand little triggers in your brain that say in one chorus, "Holy Smokes. This is the one!" For example, this post isn't a bunch of characters. Deep down, it's a bunch of 1s and 0s. Your instincts are kind of the same way. The synapses in your brain are looking at the person, sensing the pheromones, the funny smile, the sense of humor, the lilt in the voice, the approach to life, and a zillion other clues and bundling it all up into a Yes/No decision on whether or not to move forward.

Before I met my wife, I dated an endless series of fragile, artistic neurotics, the kind of women who would play folk music and subscribe to the Utne Reader. Seriously. In retrospect, just the same basic woman spun out in a host of different variations. I couldn't figure out why these relationships just didn't work.

At a party, this woman walked up to me and said, "I need to meet the idiot who went bungee jumping off a bridge."

Almost instantly, I thought, "Oh, my God. This is the woman I'm supposed to marry." It wasn't because she insulted me. It was because my subconscious picked up on a million different hints such as her irreverence, her basic insouciance, and her forthrightness. The fact that she looked awfully good in that sundress didn't hurt, either. We proceeded to have a thirty-minute conversation while her date looked on nervously.

I didn't get her number on the spot because that would have been kind of rude to the guy she came with. But I sure as hell tracked her down within 48 hours. We went out the next weekend, were engaged within three months, and were married within ten months of the day we met.

Using those same criteria you list, I wouldn't have made the cut. Heck, I was just getting started in my line of work and was barely scraping by. But we hit it off instantly. Sparks flew. The angels wept. It was as if a door opened and all we had to do was step through it.

Wordsworth wrote once, "We murder to dissect." Attraction is a mystery, not an equation.

[scribbles76]

If it were purely an intellectual choice, no-one would do it because people would be more mindful of the potential consequences that arise from making any decision.

How often is our capacity for clear, logical thought impeded by the biological imperative to continue this vile species at the cost of our own needs and wants?

'I got married because my hormones were screaming,' said a friend of mine when we discussed the matter a while ago. I'm given to understand she regrets the marriage but not the children.

As for me, biology was my worst subject at school. I don't owe it a thing.

[BirdieBelle]

There are so many fallacies here that I hardly know where to begin:

Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22

Biology rules so much of our lives and reproduction is the major reason for pair-bonding throughout history. Does biology rule? I will posit that it does, choosing the best mate for an individual. Of course in many countries only the male gets to choose (sometimes his family does the choosing).

I will posit that folks who use the term "pair bonding" in a romantic relationships forum don't really understand the concept.

Biology and intellect combine when choosing a mate, although they usually battle each other throughout the process.

Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22

Second part to the question: if a female gets her choice does she choose the best biological specimen (tall, strong, healthy) or does she opt for best provider (rich, older, family with money).

A "female" ( I assume you're talking about human women, even though you only used a taxonomic adjective) has different desired qualities in a mate that may not automatically line up with your assumptions.

Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22

I see some people make the same choices on 2nd and 3rd marriages even if those weren't good choices for the 1st time. Does biology make those choices and they only THINK they make them?

No, sometimes alcohol does. Seriously, though, people are different, and the second or third "choices," though similar, most likely were still not identical.

Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22

Note: Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft died yesterday at 65. He never married even though I read he believed in romantic love. So a billionaire chose not to marry or reproduce (he was not unattractive). Am always fascinated by choices people make when they have unlimited choices.

It's interesting that you think he had "unlimited choices" just because he was a billionaire. He is as limited as the next guy, based on his mindset, appearance and personality. A big bank account doesn't make you a perfect partner.