Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 203–211 | Cite as

Age Preferences in Dating Advertisements by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals: From Sociobiological to Sociological Explanations

Original Paper


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.


Mating preferences Homosexuals Meme theory Dating ads Hypergamy 


  1. Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081–1093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gays and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960–973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bay Windows. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  5. Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 84, 813–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackwell, D., & Lichter, D. T. (2000). Mate selection among married and cohabitating couples. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47–51.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M., Shackleford, T., & LeBlanc, G. (2000). Number of children desired and preferred spousal age difference: Context-specific mate preference patterns across 37 cultures. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 323–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callan, V., & Liddy, L. (1982). Sex-role preference in Australian aboriginal and white children. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron, S., & Collins, A. (1997). Estimates of a hedonic ageing equation for partner search. Kyklos, 50, 409–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrier, J. M. (1977). Sex-role preference as an explanatory variable in homosexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6, 53–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coker, C. (2008). War, memes, and memeplexes. International Affairs, 84, 903–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darden, D., & Koski, P. (1988). Using the personal ads—A deviant activity? Deviant Behavior, 9, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawkins, R. (1999). The extended phenotype. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Distin, K. (2005). The selfish meme: A critical reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gay People’s Chronicle. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirschman, E. C. (1987). People as products: Analysis of a complex marketing exchange. Journal of Marketing, 51, 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Humphreys, P., & Berger, J. (1981). Theoretical consequences of the status characteristics formulation. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 953–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Just Out. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  28. Kalmijn, M. (1991). Shifting boundaries: Trends in religious and educational homogamy. American Sociological Review, 56, 786–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110, 3–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Madson, L. (2000). Inferences regarding the personality traits and sexual orientation of physically androgynous people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 148–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manning, J. T., Trivers, R., Singh, D., & Thornhill, R. (1999). The mystery of female beauty. Nature, 399, 214–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maracek, J., Finn, S., & Cardell, R. (1982). Gender roles in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nur, N. (1989). The sociobiology of human mate preferences: On testing evolutionary hypotheses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 28–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Philadelphia Gay News. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  39. Posner, R. (1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Queer Information Network. Accessed 25 Aug 2003.
  42. Quest Online. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rolf, K., & Ferrie., J. (2008). The MayDecember relationship since 1850: Age homogamy in the U.S. Working Paper. Accessed 27 May 2011 from
  46. Rosenzweig, J. M., & Lebow, W. (1992). Femme on the streets, butch in the sheets? Lesbian sex-roles, dyadic adjustment, and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Homosexuality, 23, 1–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz, C., & Mare, R. (2005). Trends in assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42, 621–646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shorter, E. (1976). The making of the modern family. New York: Collins.Google Scholar
  51. Silverthorne, Z. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. The San Francisco Bay Guardian. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  54. Thorne, A., & Coupland, J. (1998). Articulations of same-sex desire: Lesbian and gay male dating advertisements. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2, 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Santa Cruz, CA: Benjamin Cummings Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Urberg, K. (1979). Sex role conceptualization in adolescents and adults. Developmental Psychology, 15, 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valentine, D. (2007). Imagining transgender: An ethnography of a category. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Washington Blade Online. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  59. Webster, M., & Driskell, G. E. (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weinrich, J. D., Grant, I., Jacobson, D. L., & Robinson, S. R. (1992). Effects of recalled childhood non-conformity on adult genitoerotic role and AIDS exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 559–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  63. Windy City Times. Accessed Sept–Dec 2003.
  64. Wood, D., Gosling, S. D., & Porter, J. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 861–879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations