Why the drop? The study suggests it helps men be more committed in their relationships and support their partners in child rearing. In other words, the study suggests that on a biological level, men are supposed to be engaged in raising children.

“The real take-home message,” said Peter Ellison, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard who was not involved in the study, is that “male parental care is important. It’s important enough that it’s actually shaped the physiology of men.”

To many, testosterone equals manliness, but several researchers in the article make a point of saying men shouldn’t worry that children and the drop in testosterone that goes with them, will kill their manhood.

The lowering of their testosterone did not prevent the men in the study from having more children. “You don’t need a lot of testosterone to have libido,” [said the study's co-author Dr. Christopher Kuzawa].

“If guys are worried about basically, ‘Am I going to remain a guy?’” [Emory University anthropologist Carol] Worthman [who was not involved in the study] said, “we’re not talking about changes that are going to take testosterone outside the range of having hairy chests, deep voices and big muscles and sperm counts. These are more subtle effects.”

Dr. Ellison explains why he thinks some men may be afraid of this study.

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Ellison added, “I think American males have been brainwashed” to believe lower testosterone means that “maybe you’re a wimp, that it’s because you’re not really a man.

“My hope would be that this kind of research has an impact on the American male. It would make them realize that we’re meant to be active fathers and participate in the care of our offspring.”

Perhaps this will reassure some men that it’s manly – in the biological sense – to be a full partner in raising children.

Read the full article here.

H/t: Art of Manliness.

Photo credit: bobhouser/Flickr

Connect with me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

In an effort to enlighten ourselves, we searched the term “sexist” on several stock photography sites, and we came up with some fairly resolute results. First of all, almost all sexism occurs in the office. Second, coffee and ties are often unwitting accomplices to sexism. Third, there’s a guy out there somewhere who has a shirt with little pigs all over it and the word “Sexy” in big letters. Watch out for him: he’s clearly very sexist and dangerous.

It’s hard to put humor aside when looking at some of the photos. They’re more ridiculous than sexist.

As they pointed out, many of the photos chosen by the companies (or maybe just by HuffPost) take place in an office. It’s at work where there’s an obvious imbalance of power. It wasn’t always men, though, who were the perpetrators of sexism (or ridiculousness).

But what makes this fascinating isn’t that these photos are ironclad definitions of sexist behavior. Some of them clearly aren’t. But they are what someone, somewhere – specifically, researchers at these stock photo companies - perceive as sexist. Because two people won’t perceive a situation in exactly the same way, discussing perceptions usually lead to interesting conversations.

So, take a look at the slideshow at the Huffington Post and tell me what you think.

Follow me on Twitter. Connect with me of Facebook.

It’s that gay people are forcing straight people to admit that they redefined marriage decades ago. Marriage used to be a gendered institution. It used to be a property transaction where a man took possession of another man’s property – daughter and it became wife – and that’s not what marriage is anymore.

Marriage, when straight people do it, is the legal union of two autonomous equals. And they get to then define their marriage. A marriage can be monogamous or not. There can be children or not. It can be for life or not. There can be – It can be religious – the ceremony – or not. It’s up to that couple. That institution as straight people practice it, as straight people redefined it – there’s no logical case to be made to exclude gay couples from it, monogamous or not, from an institution that doesn’t exclude straight couples, monogamous or not.

That’s a great reminder for those who signed the Marriage Vow.

See the full interview here:

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

The London Sun reported that the terms of Elin Nordegren’s divorce from Woods are final. The paper said she will get $750 million along with full physical custody of their kids and several pieces real estate. Nordegren also can’t talk publicly about Tiger, ever. A source who claims to be a friend of Nordegren is quoted as saying, “The price of the huge sum is her silence: no interviews, tell-all books, or TV appearances about this for the rest of her life – even if Tiger dies first – or she’ll lose the lot.”

Forbes disputes that three-quareters of billion dollar figure saying Tiger doesn’t even have a net worth of $750 million. They put his net worth at $600 million, but half of that is still a lot of money.

It must be extremely devastating and painful to have the entire world know your husband cheated with umpteen cocktail waitresses, strippers and porn stars. Three hundred million or three-quarters of a billion dollars, though, would definitely soothe some of that pain, and is, apparently, the price to make sure the public never knows about it.

With the pivot of a desk and a chair under our loft bed, I was able to turn storage space into a little office area. The transformation from storage to Dean’s Den, one of a few names Holly calls it, was unintentional. I just wanted a place to be alone so I could write.

When I Googled “man caves” I found a ton of websites devoted to the topic. There’s even a show on the DIY Network called “Man Caves” that I had no idea existed. The show could be called “Extreme Makeover: Dude Edition.”

That’s one reason why I’m not crazy about the “cave” part of the term man cave. The word doesn’t do justice to how huge and elaborate these space are. They’re tricked-out with all kinds of gadgets and amenities around certain themes like sports bars, wine cellars or recording studios. There are even basements turned into nightclubs, gun vaults and golf dens.

Check out some from the show “Man Caves:”

My area, though, is a workspace. I’m looking for a quiet place to work, not to play. When I read that one guy uses his man cave to watch television all day, I thought, “Nah, I’m not trying to make a man cave.” Which brings me to my second surprise in researching all this.

It seems that some guys use their space to get away from their wives and family instead of just being alone. Read this from a Buffalo News story about man caves:

“It’s a sense of territoriality,” said Donna Levin, Hilbert College psychology professor. “As men more became part of the home with child care and cooking chores, they needed to create this Neanderthal space: fun and playful, entertaining and relaxing. It sounds like a really smart idea, to have a place where you can’t be bothered.”

First: “Neanderthal”? That’s the second reason why I don’t like the term “man cave.” Why are we reduced to cave men when wanting our own space? Second: “You can’t be bothered”? I realize I’m still in the honeymoon phase of marriage, but if you’re spending thousands of dollars on an elaborate room to get away from your family so you “can’t be bothered,” you might have problems. I would think (hope!) these spaces are more about solitude than actually getting away from your family.

Being alone and getting away are two different things. I’m one of those people who needs “alone time.” It doesn’t have to be in the den. I could be running or watching TV. It doesn’t mean I want to be away from anyone. As I said, there’s a distinction between getting away from someone and being alone. It’s the difference between “I don’t want to be with you” and “I just want to be with me.”

Holly and I live in small but comfortable one bedroom apartment in city of 8 million people. So, if extra space can be made, even it’s only measured in low double-digit square footage, that’s fine by me.

Update: It’s been a while since this post went live, but it doesn’t mean I can’t show you Dean’s Den:

I was at the gym when coverage of the Masters was wrapping up on TV. When watching TV on mute (or close to mute), the images can speak to the viewer more than when the sound is turned up. At the gym, I was watching pictures and video of this year’s winner, Phil Mickelson, hugging his wife, Amy, who is battling cancer. (Mickelson’s mother also has cancer.) For someone who doesn’t follow golf and wouldn’t have been able to point out Mickelson if he passed me on the street, I was touched sitting there in the gym resting between my sets.

It was great video for the folks at the Masters and CBS, who broadcasted the event. The warm, fuzzy moment was great TV. After all the speculation about how Tiger might perform because of the scandal and the scandal itself looming over coverage of the tournament, it was a guy with a backstory that pulls at the heartstrings who won the weekend.

It would’ve been odd if Tiger won. The win would’ve been great for his career and a step towards the comeback of his image. A win is a win. In light of the sex scandal, though, Woods would’ve looked like an ass if he celebrated exuberantly with his trademark fist-pumping. His wife Elin wasn’t at the tournament. Even if she were, I don’t think there would have been a warm embrace.

All of this, of course, has little to do with actually playing golf. But how viewers feel about winners can impact how they feel about a sport. On Sunday, the golf world could put the scandal behind them – maybe even let out a sigh of relief – and have a feel-good moment.

..until Tiger plays again.

Famous people who cheat always get the public’s attention. Lately, though, it seems that we’re bombarded with stories about the rich and powerful who are unfaithful.

The latest, of course, is the allegation that Sandra Bullock’s husband, Jesse James, cheated on her. We’re still in the midst of the whole Tiger Woods saga – he’ll make his professional comeback at the Masters this week – and the John Edwards story has been a slow drip of revelations for about two years now. While the three might seem the same – famous people who cheat – the fame and income dynamics of James and Bullock’s relationship is the opposite of Edwards, Woods and their wives. Even though James is famous (well, semi-famous, perhaps infamous) and presumably makes a good living on his own, Bullock is an A-list superstar and surely makes more money than he does.

So, why do men cheat? There have been a ton of recent stories trying to answer that question. (Don’t be fooled, though. Women cheat too. Yes, men cheat more than women, but not by a huge margin.) On Saturday, “Larry King Live” had a show to discuss try to answer the question and get into what causes cheating. I won’t tell you the entire motley crew of guests. All you need to know is that addiction expert Dr. Drew Pinsky, comedian Adam Carolla, “Survivor” host and LKL guest-host Jeff Probst, and Dr. Daniel Amen, a psychiatrist and brain imaging expert, (as I said, a motley crew) got into an exchange about whether driven and high-powered people might cheat more:

CAROLLA: I have a question for Dr. Drew. I’m going to don the Larry suspenders for one second. Celebrities, athletes, people that are driven, already focus and motivated, a higher percentage of cheating or is it just opportunity?

PINSKY: A higher percentage of trauma, and thereby a much higher percentage of the kinds of things Dr. Amen is talking about in their brains.

PROBST: Dr. Amen, when you — I think a lot of people look at someone like Tiger Woods, so controlled. That’s what he was known for, the calm golfer. And then all this chaos in the other part of his life. Does that show up, or is there an explanation based on the brain?

AMEN: You know, what I would say is people who are celebrities, who are very successful, well, they’re always getting the pleasure center of their brain stimulated. So it’s stimulated repeatedly. You know, you win a Masters. You win another tournament. People talk about how wonderful you are. You get tens of millions dollars of contracts.

Well, pretty soon, the pleasure center in your brain starts to get warn out. And it takes more and more and more excitement in order to feel anything at all. So I think that’s one of the things that celebrities have to worry about.

While drive and success is only one factor in determining who will cheat, could wives be more likely to cheat on their husbands now compared to in the past? A recent Pew Research study showed more women were more educated and making more money than their husbands in 2007 compared to 1970. So, could there be an up-tick in the percentage of women who cheat on their husbands?

Or will insecurity about their wives’ success and bigger income cause even more husbands to cheat?

Leave your thoughts below.

The question is, “How’s married life?”

It’s not an unanswerable question. I usually respond with a variation of, “Good. The same as before we were married.” Which is the truth. The question was hard for me to answer the first couple of times. It’s not because there was something wrong with Holly and me. I just don’t think of life in terms of before and after getting married. It seems I don’t understand the concept of “Married Life.”

Full disclosure: I used to ask people this same question. I realize it’s sometimes translation for: “I haven’t talked to/seen you since your wedding and I want to get the conversation going with the last thing I associate with you.” That’s cool. And make no mistake: I know marriage is a big deal. The couple makes vows in front of their families, friends and the state to be a committed unit that will support, care and be responsible for each other for the rest of their lives. That’s huge!

To me, though, “How’s married life?” implies an idea that marriage changes everything. Does it? Relationships grow and change along with the people in it. Isn’t marriage an extension of that relationship? It was for me. Holly and I were living together for two years before I popped the question and nearly three years by the time we tied the knot. There were already emotional and contractual commitments to the relationship in place before the engagement. Marriage isn’t a different type of relationship for me. It’s more of the relationship. Our life together will grow, but we had a wonderful life before we were married. I don’t expect our life to get better just because we are married. Getting married and having a wedding didn’t instantly usher in a new era in our lives. It was part of the natural progression and evolution of our relationship. Our strong relationship enabled us to make commitment and get married.

Of course, this is just Holly and me. Your life and marriage may be different. Do you think of your life or relationship as “before” and “after” you got married? How and why?

(Thanks to our friend Beth for the great photo of Holly and me!)

Before I wrote this post about more wives earning more money than their husbands, I sent an email to several male friends about the trend. Why just guys? Because I first read about “The Rise of Wives” in this New York Times article. The piece only quoted women who said who said they had difficulty finding and staying with male companions. They claimed the men they dated were insecure about being out-earned. I found a few articles on the increase in stay-at-home dads, but nothing from men on this study. It was like half the story was missing.

So, I emailed some of my guy friends. Here are responses from two of them.

Feliciano wrote:

I don’t mind when I find out the woman I’m dating makes more than me. The real challenge is deciding when or if to reveal how much I make. It’s something that should come out naturally. I’m always wary of women who want/need to know how much I make right away. It’s funny, I wonder if more guys are figuring out clever ways to find out how much the woman they’re dating earns…sort of a new twist on gold-digging.

Rich, who said his mother makes more than his father, doesn’t have a problem dating a woman who out-earns him. He wrote:

I think there’s more going on [in the New York Times article] than just ‘the guy was insecure about how much money I make.’ At the end of the day women’s salaries, while having increased as much as they have in the past forty years, are still not equal. Because of this, for a woman to be successful she most likely has to put forth more effort and time, to rise on her own merits and abilities rather than through a buddy system of golfing and racquetball partners. It seems like the man might resent that she spends more time than he thinks she should working towards success, rather than the amount of money she makes.

I find this trend fascinating. It has so many implications for our expectations of marriage, what men and women look for in a mate compared to a generation ago and who’s more likely to be a child’s primary caretaker. It’s also related to the fact that women are out-graduating men from college, the recession (or “mancession“) and, as Rich pointed out, pay equality in the workplace.

I would love to hear from more of you: stay-at-home dads, wives who earn more than their husbands, people who are currently dating.

Join the conversation and leave your comments.

Then, after hearing about their job, their last vacation and their spotless apartment, you’re pretty sure they earn more money than you. They may not have a trust fund, but you’re pretty sure they’re worrying about money a less than you are.

Now, if you’re a guy, is this a problem? Did her level of hotness just take a nosedive after finding out she out-earns you? Is she now undateable? If you’re a woman and realize your salary is bigger than your date’s, did this romance just end? Did you lose interest?

Or does it matter anymore that a man doesn’t make as much as the woman he’s dating?

These questions are certainly presenting themselves more and more in light of the Pew Research Center Study that was released last week. In “The New Economics of Marriage: The Rise of Wives,” the folks at Pew looked at Americans between the ages of 30 and 44 in 2007 and found it’s more likely for a wife to out-earn her husband than in 1970. Back then, only 4% of married couples were ones in which the wife made more than the husband. In 2007, that number rose to 22% of married couples.

While the study is related to the increasing number of women in the workforce and the change in how the responsibilities of home and childcare are divided, the study doesn’t give insight into the financial potential we look for in a mate. The study didn’t indicate when the wife began earning more money than the husband. Was she already earning more when they met, was it when they were dating, or after they were married?

Marriage is different than dating. In a marriage, two reasonable and loving people would hopefully realize that it doesn’t matter who makes the most money. Only a cold – and idiotic – person would get a divorce just because the bigger paycheck belongs to the other spouse. What’s important is that both are happy and contributing to the family to the best of their abilities. This study shows married couples are realizing it doesn’t matter who makes more money.

But dating can be different. When someone is in a relationship, it’s an opportunity for them to see if their companion can fit into the dreams they have. Because money fuels many of our dreams – traveling, buying a house, supporting kids, buying a second house – the current salary and earning potential of a partner are things to consider.

Which brings us back to your hypothetical date with straight teeth and good manners. Does it make a difference?

To you single guys out there, is it intimidating if a date earns more money than you? How do you feel about the idea of making less than a potential wife? Are you willing to be the one who primarily takes care of your children? Must you be the financial provider for the family?

For women who are dating, are you willing to be the family’s financial provider? Is it unattractive if your date makes less than you? Can you envision yourself working long hours while your husband is home with the kids?

Leave a comment below.