What you probably have backwards about romantic relationships

Photo by Everton Vila on Unsplash

The title of this 2024 paper by Iris Wahring and colleagues says it all: "Romantic Relationships Matter More to Men than to Women." I bet you had that one backwards.

 

The authors start with the widespread view that women are "more romantic than men, and romantic relationships are assumed to be more central to the lives of women than to those of men." But based on recent research painting a different picture, they propose that, relative to women, men actually (1) "expect to obtain greater benefits from relationship formation and thus strive more strongly for a romantic partner"; (2) "benefit more from romantic relationship involvement in terms of their mental and physical health"; (3) "are less likely to initiate breakups"; and (4) "suffer more from relationship dissolution." 

 

Why should romantic relationships be more consequential to men than to women? It's simple, really: "The basic mechanism [is] that men perceive less intimacy and less emotional support from their social ties beyond romantic partners." In other words, everyone needs intimacy and emotional support, but women can get that from their women friends and family members* while the vast majority of men are not getting enough of that while hanging out with their bros watching sports. So men have to turn to their female romantic partners to get the same kind of emotional support that women are getting from their other social relationships. Men, remember that when you're looking to make some new male friends.

 

---------

*One theory is that "women (relative to men) are more inclined to turn to others when distressed in a tending and befriending manner – that is, banding together with others for mutual support, resources, and protection," which causes "the release of oxytocin known to facilitate affiliation and emotional bonding with other people."

 *********

For years, Mom and I have been using our own blend of brown rice flour, sweet (glutinous) white rice flour, and tapioca flour/starch as our go-to gluten-free flour blend. But I recently read about another simple blend by Brian Levy in NYT Cooking. This one uses four kinds of flour instead of three, but it's not difficult to source the ingredients, which are all widely available from Bob's Red Mill (we can always find all of them at Wegmans). The blend leads to a more complex flavor and aroma than what we were using before. According to Levy, each component contributes benefits other than just its own flavor: "White and brown rice deliver a hefty dose of starch; millet imparts a yellow hue and a rich, buttery flavor; oat adds protein and fiber to help with structure and moistness." I also like that the mix is about 59% whole grain.

Gluten-Free All-Purpose Flour Blend

Adapted from Good and Sweet (2022) by Brian Levy via NYT Cooking (recipe, article)

Time: 5 minutes

We use the widely available Bob’s Red Mill for each of the flours.

415 grams white rice flour
205 grams millet flour
190 grams oat flour
190 grams brown rice flour

Weigh all of the flours into a very large mixing bowl. Whisk until thoroughly combined. Transfer to an airtight container, and store for up to 6 months, or as long as the blend has a neutral, pleasant (mildly nutty and sweet) aroma. Makes 1,000 grams, about 8 cups (1 cup of this flour blend weighs about 130 grams).