ZOSIMO T. LITERATUS, RMTThere are two major phases in the initiation of courtship among us. First, the move of making the contact; then, the introduction of oneself once the contact has been established.
Biologically, as can be observed among lower mammals, courtship behavior is designed to maximize reproductive success of each respective species. In humans, intimate relationship acts as the initial goal of contact, which is hoped in time to evolve into long-lasting bonds including sexual commitments.
The theory of parental investment[1] proposed that the gender that invests most in reproduction (usually the female) will be more selective in choosing a mate. Conversely, the gender that invests the least is more likely to desert and to pursue additional mating opportunities. This prospect justifies the need for courtship or wooing in order to increase male investment to the intimate relationship, also increasing the masculine need to be ensured of exclusive sexual access to their partner, studies in 1985[2] and 1993[3].
Grammer[4] observed in 1989 that male had the mistaken notion that they use seduction more frequently than females when in fact their actions were in response to the females’ subtle initiating behaviors. This indicates a kind of male insensitivity to female subtle signals although he is capable of processing these signals subconsciously. In short, males get the subtle initiating behaviors right without consciously noticing these signals.
Historically, studies have known males to (1) generally hesitate in approaching a female in the absence of indications of interest[5], (2) be more eager than females to return a flirtation[6], and (3) think they should take the initiative for making contact[7].
In contrast to the apparent male ignorance to what occurs during flirtation, females seem to be highly aware of what happens, noted studies in 1985[8] and (Kirkendall) 1961[9].
Carolina de Weerth and Akko Kalma reported in the research journal Sex Roles (June 1995 issue) that males and females indeed differ in many ways in relation to courtship initiation. While males predominantly believe they were the initiators, females believed so evenly distributed between genders. Neither believes that females initiate contact predominantly. Males (72%) and females (69%) however believe they would make the first move given the conditions demand it. Courting a stranger made no significant difference between genders.
The initiating gender issue did not confirm the predominance of males over females. The study shows that women (89%) and men (96%) do not consider the gender of the initiator as important in establishing contact. De Weerth and Kalma however noticed a trend for females to think more strongly than males that men should take the first step towards initiating contact.
Eye contact has been reported as the most frequent non-verbal behavior used in contact initiation. It is interpreted as an announcement of the person’s readiness to communicate. Nobody is expected to proceed in verbal tactics without first using eye contact. Non-verbal tactics can open up contact without being too obvious to run the risk of causing affront upon rejection.
Females avoid overt signalling, according to Grammer, as it risked getting interpreted as general availability (implying potential for cuckoldry) and risk losing very attractive males, those who are interested in a long-term relationship.
In the self-presentation phase of courtship, males present themselves to females according to what is thought as characteristics valued by females—tenderness, cooking abilities, etc. The same is true with females who present traits they believed as valuable to males—knowing a lot, prestigiously occupied, etc. This consciousness towards perceived gender expectations has changed. Current study indicates that genders instead express personal traits attributed to the opposite sex as an interpretation of what the other gender prefers such as expressiveness in males and instrumentality in females.
The current changes in the dynamism of male-female courtship make for more interesting possibilities in the future. That in itself is something to look forward to, my friends.
Biologically, as can be observed among lower mammals, courtship behavior is designed to maximize reproductive success of each respective species. In humans, intimate relationship acts as the initial goal of contact, which is hoped in time to evolve into long-lasting bonds including sexual commitments.
The theory of parental investment[1] proposed that the gender that invests most in reproduction (usually the female) will be more selective in choosing a mate. Conversely, the gender that invests the least is more likely to desert and to pursue additional mating opportunities. This prospect justifies the need for courtship or wooing in order to increase male investment to the intimate relationship, also increasing the masculine need to be ensured of exclusive sexual access to their partner, studies in 1985[2] and 1993[3].
Grammer[4] observed in 1989 that male had the mistaken notion that they use seduction more frequently than females when in fact their actions were in response to the females’ subtle initiating behaviors. This indicates a kind of male insensitivity to female subtle signals although he is capable of processing these signals subconsciously. In short, males get the subtle initiating behaviors right without consciously noticing these signals.
Historically, studies have known males to (1) generally hesitate in approaching a female in the absence of indications of interest[5], (2) be more eager than females to return a flirtation[6], and (3) think they should take the initiative for making contact[7].
In contrast to the apparent male ignorance to what occurs during flirtation, females seem to be highly aware of what happens, noted studies in 1985[8] and (Kirkendall) 1961[9].
Carolina de Weerth and Akko Kalma reported in the research journal Sex Roles (June 1995 issue) that males and females indeed differ in many ways in relation to courtship initiation. While males predominantly believe they were the initiators, females believed so evenly distributed between genders. Neither believes that females initiate contact predominantly. Males (72%) and females (69%) however believe they would make the first move given the conditions demand it. Courting a stranger made no significant difference between genders.
The initiating gender issue did not confirm the predominance of males over females. The study shows that women (89%) and men (96%) do not consider the gender of the initiator as important in establishing contact. De Weerth and Kalma however noticed a trend for females to think more strongly than males that men should take the first step towards initiating contact.
Eye contact has been reported as the most frequent non-verbal behavior used in contact initiation. It is interpreted as an announcement of the person’s readiness to communicate. Nobody is expected to proceed in verbal tactics without first using eye contact. Non-verbal tactics can open up contact without being too obvious to run the risk of causing affront upon rejection.
Females avoid overt signalling, according to Grammer, as it risked getting interpreted as general availability (implying potential for cuckoldry) and risk losing very attractive males, those who are interested in a long-term relationship.
In the self-presentation phase of courtship, males present themselves to females according to what is thought as characteristics valued by females—tenderness, cooking abilities, etc. The same is true with females who present traits they believed as valuable to males—knowing a lot, prestigiously occupied, etc. This consciousness towards perceived gender expectations has changed. Current study indicates that genders instead express personal traits attributed to the opposite sex as an interpretation of what the other gender prefers such as expressiveness in males and instrumentality in females.
The current changes in the dynamism of male-female courtship make for more interesting possibilities in the future. That in itself is something to look forward to, my friends.
---------------------------
Notes:
[1] Proposed by RL Trivers in 1972 in an article entitled “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection,” included in B. Campbell’s editorial work, “Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871-1971” (London: Heinemann)
[2] RL Trivers: Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings
[3] DM Buss and DP Schmitt: Sexual strategies: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 2004-232
[4] From a Karl Grammer article “Human Courtship Behavior: Biological basis and Cognitive Processing,” printed in the editorial book by C Vogel and E Voland entitled “The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies” (London: Chapman & Hall). Grammer is a professor at the Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology in Vienna, Austria.
[5] Secondarily cited from a Crook study in 1972; specific mention of said study was not available.
[6] JL Downey and WF Vitulli: “Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations. Psychological Reports, 1987; 61: 899-904
[7] Karl Grammer: “Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1990;236 14: 209
[8] T Perper: “Sex signals: The biology of love.” Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press
[9] L Kirkendall: “Premarital intercourse and interpersonal relationship.” New York: Julian Press
[2] RL Trivers: Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings
[3] DM Buss and DP Schmitt: Sexual strategies: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 2004-232
[4] From a Karl Grammer article “Human Courtship Behavior: Biological basis and Cognitive Processing,” printed in the editorial book by C Vogel and E Voland entitled “The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies” (London: Chapman & Hall). Grammer is a professor at the Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology in Vienna, Austria.
[5] Secondarily cited from a Crook study in 1972; specific mention of said study was not available.
[6] JL Downey and WF Vitulli: “Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations. Psychological Reports, 1987; 61: 899-904
[7] Karl Grammer: “Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1990;236 14: 209
[8] T Perper: “Sex signals: The biology of love.” Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press
[9] L Kirkendall: “Premarital intercourse and interpersonal relationship.” New York: Julian Press
Comments
Post a Comment