I'm still playing around with the topic of political affiliation and marriage. I came across an interesting article on Match.com. They found that Republicans and Democrats have different priorities in the characteristics that they are looking for in partner.
“They are really looking for different things,” says Dr. Fisher. In a nutshell, Republicans want matches from similar backgrounds (i.e., the same religion and/or ethnic group, share the same basic set of values and have similar attitudes about money). Democrats are significantly more likely to claim their “must-haves” for a partner include: being funny, independent, having a similar level of education/communication skills, and being comfortable with his or her sexuality. “This speaks to core values, priorities, and goals in life,” says Dr. Fisher. “And those ‘must-haves’ are not going to change.”
Apt. 11d 
I know I’ve seen lots of complaints over the years that everybody says they want funny in a romantic partner, but that it’s really not true. In real life, aren’t the funniest people often depressive, with huge substance abuse problems?
“Independent” is a weird quality to look for in a romantic partner, especially if your political orientation is theoretically all about helping people and interdependence. I realize being too dependent is bad, but being too independent (i.e. pigheaded and/or distant and/or given to making major decisions without consultation) is terrible in a spouse.
The similar attitudes about money thing is really important and it didn’t come up in our previous discussion. For a lot of couples, money is the subject that they fight about.
“being comfortable with his or her sexuality.”
Just about everybody is comfortable with their sexuality. It’s other people’s sexuality that is more of a problem.
LikeLike
It sounds to me like the Republicans are on there looking for relationships and the Dems are on there looking for sex! One possible interpretation .
LikeLike
Louisa,
That is a very good point. The Democratic preference for similar education and communication skills sounds a bit more future-oriented, though.
LikeLike
Sense of humor and independence are two things I think would make for long-term happiness. I think of independence as having people, jobs, commitments (including faith commitments) etc., that you care about deeply, and that support you in some way, so that your partner isn’t the only good thing in your life. The couples I know that seem to thrive usually have those things. That doesn’t mean they don’t value each other above these other things, though.
LikeLike
Amy P,
I interpreted it like af, to me sense of humor rather than being objectively funny. Also, I think it means sense of humor as in able to laugh at the absurd things in life, not as in able to tell a good joke. My last relationship was with a guy who could do the latter and not former, and it was a very stressful relationship, since he was absolutely rigid and any small upset to his plans absolutely ruined his (and anyone around him’s) day.
LikeLike
One interpretation I’ve seen of “sense of humor” in these dating wish lists is that 1) when women say they want a sense of humor in a guy, they mean “won’t be mean to the kids” and 2) when men say they want a sense of humor in a woman, they mean “laughs at my jokes.”
LikeLike
I’ve written something like 3 replies to this post and have deleted all of them because I don’t quite know what I want to say. I am definitely a Dem, and I like all the alleged Dem must-haves, but I also think similar values and attitudes about money are important. I’m a little offended by Louisa’s suggestion that Dems look for sex and Reps look for relationships. Part of it is knowing what these “must-haves” even mean, too. Independence is such a key part of my husband’s and my relationship. I actually think that it’s part of sharing core values, not in opposition to core values. It’s hard for me to believe that Reps don’t prioritize independence. I think they prioritize the same things my husband and I do. Maybe the problem is that we don’t call the same things by the same names.
LikeLike
So the survey sample is Republicans and Democrats who use Match.com, and feel comfortable ticking off boxes to report to total strangers how often they’ve had sex in the last 12 months?
Could it be this isn’t a representative sample?
LikeLike
I had the same thought about the words “religion and ethnicity” as an important shared characteristic. It’s true that I don’t care about ethnicity. But, I do care about religion, i.e. not having one. I’m guessing that a number of people who say they want “independent, funny” people aren’t looking for someone who is deeply catholic, even if they’re independent and funny.
I’m not offended by Louisa’s comment, ’cause, I think it was basically trying to be funny. But, also, if it were for real, it would be interesting to test. For example, if they followed up, would more of the Match.com initiated contact among conservatives end in a “relationship’ as opposed to the contacts among liberals? It’s a testable hypothesis.
As Y81 said in another thread, it’s always a mistake to assume that one group of humans are fundamentally different from another group of humans, rather than to assume that a combination of sorting, training, differing environmental pressures, . . . . are coming into play.
LikeLike
Age at marriage is a big cultural difference within the US.
LikeLike
Kind of irrelevant, but an observation from my day. I went to a friend/colleague’s mother’s funeral today with some of my colleagues, and at one point during the Catholic mass, I realized that our row in the church was a set-up for some sort of joke: “A Jew, a Muslim and an atheist walk into a Catholic church and ….”
LikeLike