A study conducted at the University of Tennessee claims that women should wed a man who is uglier than them if they want a happy marriage.They rated 82 newlywed couples on their looks then got them to talk about their problems. The couples' discussions were filmed in order to measure how emotionally supportive they were of each other.
Study leader Professor Jim McNulty said: "Men who were more attractive than their partner had a tendency to offer less emotional and practical support to their wives. But men who were less attractive than their wives demonstrated a tendency to be more likely to offer support. Evolutionary perspectives can help explain why men's attractiveness appeared to be more detrimental than beneficial to marriage. Attractive men have available to them more short-term mating opportunities. This may make them less satisfied and less committed to the marital relationship." He said women are less choosy about what their men look like, as long as they are able to help them reproduce. (Source here)
I cannot help but think of two things after hearing about this study on CNN this afternoon:
- Why do researchers spend so much time and money on studying a subject like this? I guess the motivation stems from the high divorce rate in this country. Why can't they simply ask Indians (who have statistically the highest number of 'happy marriages'). Anyone remembers the saying - "Langoor ke mooh meh angoor" - why would the langoor go for other fruits when his own angoor is both JUICY and FREE?
- If any hot chick is reading this - hey, I am VERY VERY average looking (and by definition, the best for you!!). I can assure you that I am overweight, will be bald by the time I turn 30 and am still in the single market. Email me or leave a comment. (As a side thought, as a service to society, I am wondering if I should start hitting on really hot chicks. You know, a happy marriage is the fabric of a "content" society :D).
14 comments:
Where do you get such pictures?..the post was as usual an insightful read.
Nice one. specially the second part where it seems like:
1. You're on beach.
2. You're Single.
3. You desperately want a female.
Ha ha ha ha ha....
Lo sir comment kar diye...!!!
beauty is the beast and beast is the beauty.....
It reminds me of the situation in Minerva during Anish's treat. While I don't remember the exact words that you said after checking out the desi girl but it was something like 'sir dekh rahe ho .. duniya mein nikammo ko bhi pura mauka milta hai'
@Aditya: Thora research and thora luck.
@Manu Kant: :X
@Sush: True, true.
@Fuzzy: He he, you sure have a good memory!
You seem to be lacking that sir ... somebody seems to be forgetting their co-driver during the drive to the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra :-D
Very nice picture...thats smthng i luved a lot..
I think as long as we dont treat marrige like the communion of 2 souls and like a simple business transaction, its a whole lot simpler(goes in line with my new fascination of how wall street by itself can unravel of mysteries of space time yada yada)
But then the article if so feminist coz it says in a marriage only the support of husband is needed. SO if he is faithful, the holy matrimony is a success (As a grad student, i would have added the warning "All other things being equal" :D)
1. Indians have the highest rate of successful marriages....I think rest of the money should be diverted to dispel this truth...
2. Gals, the guy is definitely not average, he will sport a fantabulous hairstyle in his 30's (while he is say CEO or smthng) and be filthy rich....In fact, forget 30's....he is good enough to make a teapot whistle (no sexual connotations here).....I on the other hand ...ahemmmm :P (if i list my email id, i thnk he'll remove my post)
really enjoyed reading this 1.....
From what I remember and what authoritative sources* say, bloke means a man. Your point 2 sounded like you were trying sell um.. market yourself for a date with a hot bloke. Or did I read it wrong?
Not that I think its wrong to do that :)
*http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bloke
Interesting theory. I guess the Ugly man and his beautiful wife equation makes both parties happy :)
The woman gets to be admired, revered, worshipped for her beauty
and put on the pedestral
The man gets to show of his trophy wife to his friends, who are probably envious of his good fortune given his average looks.
So both parties feel like they are in a win-win situation . :)
@Anurup: Ha ha, nice catch Anurup! Thanks for the update - I have corrected the term in the original article.
@Mandeep: You can surely pen down your email ID here, if you get something from this post, I will have something to rant about all my life :)
@Nandini: I agree but am somehow not comfortable to the whole concept of a trophy wife - although I am one of them.
@Rupsha: Thanks!!
One potential flaw in the ugly husband-beautiful wife theory.
Agreed if the man is not as good looking as his wife, he will worship her beauty, but there is always a possibility of a more beautiful woman coming on the scene. After all beauty is relative.
Then the theory can no longer hold water. Thus if beauty of his wife is the secret of a guys happiness in marriage, then a person can only be happy if he does not come in contact with other women or if he is married to the most beautiful of them all, in the former case he needs to be shipwrecked in an godforsaken place and in the latter only one man in the universe is happy.
@Nandini: The post is from the perspective of the "Woman" and not the Man. Although your analysis should hold true in a relational world (x implies y), the world itself is more heterogeneous and complicated - and hence your words becomes too generic.
I think your comment is more focussed on how the man will be contended/happy rather than the woman. The study, the post and my intent were to focus on the possible post nuptial happiness of women with lesser looking husbands.
Post a Comment