Essay No. 2: Love, Literature, Lipstick, & Lasagna
Disclaimer: The post below includes adult themes.
It’s cuffing season, apparently. Until recently, I just assumed that was a colloquial expression, but I recently discovered that it’s supposed to be an actual thing. Leaving out the sexual undertones, which I’m a lot less interested in, it’s basically a time of year in the winter months where single people tend to have a greater desire for companionship. It also overlaps with the holidays, too (November up through Valentine’s Day?), so that contributes as well. After stumbling upon some articles and doing some reading, I found the idea intriguing enough. I thought I’d make it the basis for something to write on.
Based on what I’ve read thus far, if I had to put a label on myself, maybe I’d characterize myself as a Reluctant Romantic. Let me be clear: I think love and romance are absolutely beautiful things, and indeed, marriage is one of God’s greatest gifts to man. But there are at least two important caveats.
First, I try not to get wrapped up in social norms. I grew up down south, where it’s not uncommon, at all, to be married by 24. Beyond that, I also grew up in church, where it’s not uncommon, at all, to marry quite young (22-24?). In that sense, my behavior is somewhat unorthodox, perhaps especially given the favorable ratio of men to women in most churches.
“Everyone else is getting married, and having babies, so why aren’t you?”
I think subscribing to social norms are an easy way to end up living the life someone else wants you to live. One day you’ll wake up in the middle of the night and realize that you have no idea who you really are; rather, you’ve spent your entire life doing what’s ‘expected’ or ‘encouraged’. That’s no way to live. I think that’s terrifying, in fact. Moreover, I think the easiest way to be dissatisfied is by comparing your life to a composite average of other people’s experiences, which I’ll call, here, a social norm. Is it any wonder, then, that everyone feels they should be making more money, live in a bigger house, and have such an enriching romantic relationship?
No thanks; I’ll pass on that. No, I try not to overemphasize social norms, romantic or otherwise.
The second reason I would, perhaps, characterize myself as a Reluctant Romantic is that I do value my independence, and I’m pretty unapologetic about that. I can invest (time, money, and energy) in things I really believe in, without feeling I’m diverting my focus from any major priorities (my responsibilities as a husband or father). When God tells me to go do something ridiculous or crazy, I don’t have to convince anyone about the vision I had, not to undermine the beauty of communication in a marriage.
Now, let me be clear… do I want to be where I am now for the rest of my life? Do I want to be 50 years old and move to London for a year to be a visiting Professor at the London School of Economics, and then Paris for a year, to work at Insead, and then Singapore for year, to work at Singapore Management University, because I don’t have an immediate family that may incline me to slow down and settle a bit? Hmmm, probably not. But as someone who tends to be more independent anyway, yes, I value the merits of singleness, although I don’t feel inclined to commit to that for the rest of my life. Yes, you can call me a Reluctant Romantic. I’m entirely okay with that.
That doesn’t mean I’m disinterested in romantic relationships. It does mean, in the absence of them, I won’t necessarily be disenchanted.
I remember last year, I had this thing where I wasn’t really doing dates (for a whole host of reasons I can’t get into right now). The short of it was, I wasn’t in a place where I had the emotional fortitude to spend 2+ hours with anybody. I didn’t even want to come to church half the time, to be honest (I did though). Love is hard work, people. Romantic or otherwise. Selflessness, giving, listening, consideration, etc. All AMAZING, Biblical qualities. But that’s not for the faint of heart. And it’s certainly not for every season of your life. You can’t be dating someone, or married to someone, and just, emotionally, check out for 12 months because you’re getting dragged in school and it’s distressing you emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually.
I remember one time I was out salsa dancing on Saturday night, and I started thinking about school, and my heart literally started to sink into my stomach. I thought I was having a panic attack (maybe I did?).
No, I didn’t have the emotional fortitude to spend 2+ hours on a date with anybody. I was, literally, terrified I would go on a date and 15 minutes in, my social battery would die… and then I would be an emotional wreck for the remainder of the date. But even if that didn’t happen, I also get really weird when I’m not getting enough sleep. I mean, like, really weird… even by my own standards.
I just didn’t have it in my tank to give, in the capacity of a date, for 2+ hours.
It makes me wonder how people in advanced degree programs approach romantic relationships. I’ll make that the focus of a special for Valentine’s Day at some point.
For now, though, I’ll offer a different kind of commentary on ‘cuffing season’.
Can I be honest with you? Just for a second? Man, I love an intelligent woman. Even to my fault sometimes. It’s true.
I’m a nerd. Unapologetically so, in fact. I really appreciate learning and I really appreciate people who can teach me things. Dag, she’s cute, AND she’s schooling me right now? MERCY.
Sometimes I have to catch myself. I’m like, “Wait a minute! You don’t know anything about this woman! You don’t even know if she’s about the Bible; you better check yourself before you wreck yourself!”
I usually check myself before I wreck myself. The Holy Spirit makes sure I’m not out here acting crazy. #ConvictionIsReal
But it’s just fascinating to me, because I feel like at so many points over the past year, I’ve had conversations with sisters in Christ about “timid” men. The question is, usually, something along the lines of, “Would you be intimidated by an intelligent and/or highly successful woman?”
The irony is, I have a strong preference for an incredibly bright woman. Let me be clear: I don’t think where you went to school, or how many degrees you have, or the job you work equates to intelligence. Rather, I think it’s evidenced by a general capacity to learn and a healthy interest in doing so. Beyond that, it’s particularly appealing if it’s a well-rounded combination of things, rather than being limited to just one domain (the latter isn’t quite as interesting, in my humble opinion). Kudos if you can bring things up in a stimulating discussion over dinner, at your favorite joint.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Coincidentally, there’s a lot of research showing that competent women are liked less, at least in the context of work (note: this is truer in male dominated professions; being a competent school teacher and being a competent lawyer are perceived very, very differently). That means exactly what it sounds like: If you’re a highly competent woman, both men and women at work tend to like you less. While there’s much to say about that, it wouldn’t surprise me if that generalizes, to some extent, in the context of dating. If that’s the case, many men may, perhaps, gravitate towards a woman they feel smarter than. The opposite may be true too: competent women may be avoided by male suitors, perhaps especially so when they’re competent in things women aren’t expected to be competent in (medicine, law, or engineering, for instance).
Either way though, I think guys are missing out. I think intelligent women are absolutely wonderful. But I already told you I’m partially characterized as a ‘Reluctant Romantic’, so that means I may be less subject to social norms than the average guy. In other words, I’m probably not representative of most men.
Speaking of norms though, makeup usually ends up being a point of discussion, too, when I converse with women about preferences.
“To lipstick or not to lipstick? Is that the question?”
For me, it’s difficult to know if this is a question about femininity or if this is a question on what I’m attracted to (or maybe both). Interestingly, in the social psychology field, they tend to be highly correlated anyway. That is, women that are rated higher on femininity also tend to be rated higher on physical attraction as well. The question then becomes, if a woman elected to present herself in a less stereotypically feminine way (makeup, lipstick, hairstyle, heels, dresses), how would that affect her dating prospects?
I’ll share some general thoughts, before weighing in with my own perspective.
Here’s an idea: I think men are [very] responsive to what they see and women are [very] responsive to what they feel. That needs to be unpacked, so let me try and explain. In no way am I attempting to make a generalization: these aren’t mutually exclusive. Men feel. And women see. But it’s unmistakable: men respond to visual cues… A LOT. Or maybe they place a premium on things that happen to be visual (I’ll get to that shortly).
The result is most men emphasize physical attraction. Beyond physical body type (waist, hips, and obviously much more), I do think this also includes other features, like makeup, lipstick, dresses, heels, etc. Absolutely. On the other hand, I don’t know if women feel as strong a need to date a man who looks like a model (or dresses like one, although that may still be appealing). Maybe part of that is because men can enhance their dating prospects with things like status, money, dominance, etc. but that’s not really true for women. Beyond that though, it’s also possible women emphasize personality and intimacy to a greater extent than men(?).
My personal opinion is, even if a woman is ‘out of a man’s league’, to reference a notion I tend not to subscribe to, if he can make her laugh and smile on a consistent basis, that has the potential to go a very long way. That’s part of intimacy… how you make people feel. I don’t think the same is as true for women, however: I don’t know if making a man smile improves your odds all that much with him. Men are very sensitive to their visual cues, or elect to focus considerably on them (there are many reasons, social and psychological, for that). Doesn’t mean intimacy isn’t important. Of course it is. But they respond a lot to what they see.
To that end, I do think you can be penalized, depending on the man, for how you choose to present yourself. While I tend to put makeup in a different category, because there’s a whole host of opinions about it, I suspect men will have more convergence in preferences on things like dresses, heels, hair, lipstick, etc.
My personal thoughts: As far as attraction goes, an attractive woman is going to look attractive in almost everything in her closet. It could be a really pretty dress or it could be a pair of sweatpants from college.
Baby, if you got it you got it. *Shrugs*
I think knowing how to dress (ie. “I really want to wear something nice tonight, and I know just the outfit!”) is more important than how you choose to dress, (ie. “I need lipstick and heels every time I walk out the door.”) But maybe that’s my male privilege speaking.
I try and be openminded. But to be honest, that probably says more about me than it says about men.
Finally, there’s all the hubbub and fuss about women who can cook vs. women who can’t. Indeed, many women feel that part of their liberation from men(!) is freeing themselves of the expectation of culinary competence. I might go as far as to say some women feel stigmatized because of their lack of ability in the kitchen.
So, let’s talk about lasagna. I’ll start with the practical first. As a 26 year old, single black male PhD student that knows how to cook, feel free to take my perspective with several grains of salt (pun intended).
Steph Curry is an accomplished basketball player, right? He plays for the Golden State warriors, and he’s a phenomenal 3-point shooter. Even so, Steph, who shoots 42% from behind the arc, has several other 3-point shooters on the team: Kevin Durant (42%), Klay Thompson (44%), and Cook Quinn (44%). If the situation should arise where the team is in a bind and they need a three pointer, Steph has pretty good flexibility, albeit he’s probably the best shooter on the team.
But he has options. The sole burden doesn’t rest on him.
Alternatively, Steph could be traded to another team tomorrow where he’s the ONLY 3-point shooter. In such a situation, in addition to responsibilities in moving the ball up and down the court, and distributing the ball, he would now bear the full weight of 3-point shooting, too.
That could work, but he’d probably want to trade off some of his other responsibilities.
That’s how I tend to feel about the matter of cooking, as it pertains to gender roles, anyway.
Honestly, it would be much better if we could both cook, but if you can’t, it’s certainly not a deal breaker. It just means most of that will fall on my shoulders, so we’ll probably need to swap out some responsibilities (ie. maybe she does groceries, indefinitely). It would be nice if she can learn though. Heck naw I ain’t trying to meal prep every week for the next 50 years. That’s a lot to do for just one person… But now you’re talking about meal prep for an entire family? Dag, that’s a lot of work.
But honestly, my previous observations are probably the least interesting part of our discussion on ‘lasagna’.
My personal hypothesis on why we keep having this conversation on women cooking is more along the lines of market signaling, a theory used heavily in the economics, sociology, and economic sociology literature. Early work by economists suggested that market signals could be used to assist audience members (ie people in the dating market) with recognition. The theory further argues that entities (ie. a woman) can signal qualities that are otherwise difficult to observe (like “I would make a great wife!”) through investing in signals (like learning to cook), and audience members (potential suitors) can use that to screen different participants (women) in the market.
The idea is simple enough, right?
A high school graduate may invest in a college degree to ‘signal’ to employers that they’re smart and ready to learn.
A small business might seek accreditation from the Better Business Bureau to ‘signal’ that they’re a legit business operation.
I might list on a dating website that I have a condo in a really expensive neighborhood, to ‘signal’ I have a “stable” job, I’m responsible, and I’m ready to settle down.
Note, these are all qualities that are somewhat difficult to observe, hence the signal.
Not surprisingly, we see work on market signaling in a number of different fields, including work in biology, political science, sociology, psychology, and management.
I think one of the reasons men (perhaps especially conservative men) prefer a woman who can cook is because cooking is used as a market signal. Indeed, there’s information asymmetry in the dating market. If I want to date you, you always have more info about yourself than I do. So, signals are actually very important, because they help communicate information, and everyone can’t obtain them. In the case of cooking, I think it’s used as an indication of proficiency in domestic matters.
A man may see that a woman can cook and also infer, “she’ll be a great mom, and I’m sure she knows how to keep a house clean, too!” While this may or may not be true, it doesn’t have to be 100% accurate to operate as a signal.
Now, I know what some of you are probably thinking. “This seems a bit farfetched.” Or, “My man just likes to eat! I’m not signaling anything to him!”
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
It wouldn’t be the first time we used market signals in the dating market though. Signaling is a pretty versatile theory, actually.
For instance, for many, many centuries, dancing has been viewed as a “signal” of sexual prowess. Scholars in psychology, anthropology, art history, comparative literature, and communication have been studying that for decades. Don’t let me make you feel bad for liking men or women who can dance, but trust me, there are researchers interested in why that appeals to you.
The swaying of the hips; the body control; the graceful, elegance; the flexibility and dexterity. Certainly confidence, on the part of the dancer, plays a part too, plus whatever chemistry may be shared by dancing with someone (or what you may feel from watching them dance).
No matter how you slice it up, I still think there’s a case for market signaling.
A psychologist would say you have an idiosyncratic preference for a partner who can dance.
An anthropologist would say we have a culture that values dance, and that’s reflected in how we elect partners.
An economist would say dating is a competitive market, and we therefore optimize our utility by seeking the most appealing mate we can secure, that offers the most features, dancing included.
A sociologist would say that dance improves our social esteem within society, and therefore it makes sense to learn to dance and seek a mate that can dance, too.
A biologist would say that dancing, as a mating ritual, is evolutionarily functional, as it can be used during the courtship process and ensures the livelihood of a species of organisms.
Did I leave anything out?
Realistically, it’s probably a combination of all the above: none of these, really, are mutually exclusive.
Back to lasagna though. Is it really so farfetched to say that cooking is a signal in the dating market? Depends what your definition of the word ‘is’ is. If there is a moral to the story, I think it’s that whether or not you can make lasagna, and how you make it, can actually be pretty important, even if we can’t clearly articulate (or agree) why.
None of this is meant to operate like the laws of nature though… for the most part, it’s all pretty fluid. It’s the beauty of the social sciences. Feel free to weigh in.
Some more random thoughts.
Nnamdi