Date: 22 Nov 2012
Age Preferences in Dating Advertisements by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals: From Sociobiological to Sociological Explanations
- Kathryn Burrows
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Current sociobiological thought suggests that significant components of mate selection are based on indicators that correlate with the ability to produce and support offspring. Theorists have suggested that men tend to be attracted to and marry younger women, while women tend to be attracted to and marry older men. This behavior is referred to as age hypergamy. I complicate this picture by using gay men as a population in which to explore alternative components of mate selection as reflected in our behavior. Analyses of 120 dating advertisements from gay men and heterosexual men and women indicated that there exists a good measure of hypergamic age preference that is comparable to the heterosexual population and that relates to subjects’ gender presentation. Data suggest that the biological-reproductive theory of age hypergamy is incomplete and support a cultural reproduction model of gender role behavior and preference in both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55.CrossRef
Bay Windows. http://www.baywindows.com. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 84, 813–847.CrossRef
Blackwell, D., & Lichter, D. T. (2000). Mate selection among married and cohabitating couples. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 275–302.CrossRef
Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47–51.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRef
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31.CrossRef
Callan, V., & Liddy, L. (1982). Sex-role preference in Australian aboriginal and white children. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 147–149.CrossRef
Coker, C. (2008). War, memes, and memeplexes. International Affairs, 84, 903–914.CrossRef
Darden, D., & Koski, P. (1988). Using the personal ads—A deviant activity? Deviant Behavior, 9, 383–400.CrossRef
Dawkins, R. (1999). The extended phenotype. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Distin, K. (2005). The selfish meme: A critical reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gay People’s Chronicle. http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let’s make a deal: An analysis of revelations and stipulations in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 257–264.CrossRef
Hirschman, E. C. (1987). People as products: Analysis of a complex marketing exchange. Journal of Marketing, 51, 98–108.CrossRef
Holmes, R. M., Little, K. C., & Welsh, D. P. (2008). Dating and romantic relationships, adulthood. In D. Carr, R. Crosnoe, M. E. Hughes, & A. Pienta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the life course and human development (pp. 89–91). London: Macmillan.
Hou, C. (2002). What’s the difference between online love in the East and the West? A comparative analysis of online personal ads from perspectives of culture, gender and sexual orientation. Retrieved 21 Sept 2003 from teens.theweb.org.tw/iscenter/conference2002/thesis/files/20020409071704188.8.131.52.doc.
Humphreys, P., & Berger, J. (1981). Theoretical consequences of the status characteristics formulation. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 953–983.CrossRef
Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31, 149–155.CrossRef
Just Out. http://www.justout.com/. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
Kalmijn, M. (1991). Shifting boundaries: Trends in religious and educational homogamy. American Sociological Review, 56, 786–800.CrossRef
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.CrossRef
Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for module psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1166–1172.CrossRef
Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Madson, L. (2000). Inferences regarding the personality traits and sexual orientation of physically androgynous people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 148–161.CrossRef
Maracek, J., Finn, S., & Cardell, R. (1982). Gender roles in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 45–49.CrossRef
Nur, N. (1989). The sociobiology of human mate preferences: On testing evolutionary hypotheses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 28–29.CrossRef
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.CrossRef
Philadelphia Gay News. http://www.epgn.com/. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
Posner, R. (1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Qian, Z. (2008). Mate selection. In D. Carr, R. Crosnoe, M. E. Hughes, & A. Pienta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the life course and human development (pp. 266–270). London: Macmillan.
Queer Information Network. http://manifestonews.org/QIN/Publications/. Accessed 25 Aug 2003.
Quest Online. http://www.quest-online.com/. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
Rajecki, D. W., Bledsoe, S., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1991). Successful personal ads: Gender differences and similarities in offers, stipulations and outcomes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 457–469.CrossRef
Rasmussen, J. L., Rajecki, D. W., Ebert, A. A., Lagler, K., Brewer, C., & Cochran, E. (1998). Age preferences in personal advertisements: Two life history strategies or one matching tactic? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 77–89.CrossRef
Rolf, K., & Ferrie., J. (2008). The May–December relationship since 1850: Age homogamy in the U.S. Working Paper. Accessed 27 May 2011 from http://paa2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80695.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: Gender normals, transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender and Society, 23, 440–464.CrossRef
Sears-Roberts Alterovitz, S., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2009). Partner preferences across the life span: Online dating by older adults. Psychology and Aging, 24, 513–517.CrossRef
Shorter, E. (1976). The making of the modern family. New York: Collins.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
The San Francisco Bay Guardian. http://www.sfbg.com/. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
Thorne, A., & Coupland, J. (1998). Articulations of same-sex desire: Lesbian and gay male dating advertisements. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2, 233–257.CrossRef
Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Santa Cruz, CA: Benjamin Cummings Publishing.
Urberg, K. (1979). Sex role conceptualization in adolescents and adults. Developmental Psychology, 15, 90–92.CrossRef
Valentine, D. (2007). Imagining transgender: An ethnography of a category. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Washington Blade Online. http://washblade.com. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
Webster, M., & Driskell, G. E. (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 140–165.CrossRef
Wegesin, D., & Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L. (2000). Top/bottom self-label, anal sex practices, HIV risk, and gender role identity in gay men in New York City. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 43–62.CrossRef
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Windy City Times. http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
- Age Preferences in Dating Advertisements by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals: From Sociobiological to Sociological Explanations
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Volume 42, Issue 2 , pp 203-211
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Mating preferences
- Meme theory
- Dating ads
- Industry Sectors
- Kathryn Burrows (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Sociology, Rutgers University, 26 Nichol Ave., New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA