1 / 33

Let’s Talk about Short-term Sexual Strategies

Let’s Talk about Short-term Sexual Strategies. Kristin Jones. What is Short-Term Mating?. Multi-male/ Multi-female “One-night stand” (Buss, 2005, p. 264) Brief Non-exclusive Female and her relatives deal with the consequences of parenting (Buss, 2005)

gavin
Download Presentation

Let’s Talk about Short-term Sexual Strategies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Let’s Talk about Short-term Sexual Strategies Kristin Jones

  2. What is Short-Term Mating? • Multi-male/ Multi-female • “One-night stand” (Buss, 2005, p. 264) • Brief • Non-exclusive • Female and her relatives deal with the consequences of parenting (Buss, 2005) • Variations of STM – found cross-culturally • Pre-marital sex • Extramarital sex • Mate poaching (Barry & Schlegel, 1984; Broude & Greene, 1976; Jankowiak, Nell, & Buckmaster, 2002; Schmitt, Alcalay, Allik, et al., 2004 as cited in Buss, 2005)

  3. Mate Poaching • 60% of men • 40% of women • 10% of relationships • 3% of partners “simultaneously poached” (Schmitt et al., 2004, p. 265 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Charm, deception, serial short-term mating (Schmitt et al., 2004 as cited in Buss, 2005)

  4. Assessing the Benefits of Short Term Mating 1.) Do people across all cultures engage in short-term mating when the costs are minimal? 2.) Are certain contexts more conducive to short-term strategies than others? Have such contexts shaped the selection of certain adaptations? 3.) Who benefited most from short-term mating? 4.) How are today’s contexts different from our ancestor’s? (Buss, 2005)

  5. Support for Short-Term Mating • No culture engages exclusively in ST strategies Physiological, psychological, and behavioral evidence • Ideal contexts maximize benefits and minimize costs • Men benefit more than women • Short term sex must produce some reproductive benefits • Potential benefits may differ in today’s world (Buss, 2005)

  6. Physiological Evidence • Teste size – “external and scrotal associated with high sperm storage and more short term mating” (Buss, 2005, p. 267) • Moderate sexual dimorphism • Men 10% taller, 20% and heavier (Dixson, 1998; Wolfe & Gray, 1982 as cited in Buss, 2005)) • High rate of non-conceptive sex (Moller & Birkhead, 1989; Wrangham, 1993, as cited in Buss, 2005) • Moderate sexual secondary characteristics (Cartwright, 2000; Mealey, 2000) • Silver back – polygynous • Identical – monogamous

  7. Evolved Psychological Mechanisms:“Indirect Indicators” of STM (Buss, 2005, p. 266) • Mate preferences for STM (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Universal adaptations to romantic jealousy • Men – sexual betrayal – • “Imagining you partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with that other person” (Buss et al., 1992 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Women – emotional betrayal • “Imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment to that person” (Buss et al., 1992 as cited in Buss, 2005) • http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=2503292&page=1

  8. STS: A Balancing Act • Both sexes pursue STM when contexts are appropriate – benefits maximized, costs minimized (Buss, 2005) • Women (Buss, 2005) • Quality over quantity • Greater Parental Investment • Men – Reproductive success through more partners, not children per partner (Betzig, 1986; Dawkins, 1986 as cited in Buss, 2005). • Stronger sex drive

  9. Men’s Short-Term Mating Intra-sex Competition ___________________________ Greater tendency for low cost, brief sexual encounters( Bateson, 1983; Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1992 as cited in Buss, 2005) Less Parental Investment Less Discriminating MORE PARTNERS http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=2503292&page=1

  10. What men want . . . in a short term mate • Fertility, not reproductive value (youth) • Surbey & Conohan - (as cited in Buss, 2004) men more eager to engage in short-term sexual encounters than women across all conditions • Closing Time Phenomenon • No long-term commitment • Decreases ability to pursue short-term encounters, increases demand for investment ( Buss, 2004)

  11. Men’s Mate Preferences, Female Self-Esteem and “The Double Standard” • “I don’t think a woman should be afraid of her sexuality. It’s not a bad thing for a woman to feel confident and show • her body in a way that’s right for her” • Does status Matter? • “If I want to wear lingerie outside of my clothesIf I want to be erotic in my own videosIf I want to be provocative, well that ain't a sinMaybe you're not comfortable in your own skin”

  12. Male Status and Individual Differences in Mating Strategies • High status men are more likely to successfully pursue short-term and long-term relationship needs (Borgerhoff Mulder, 1988; Turke & Betzig, 1985) • Serial Monogamy • Extra-marital affairs (Buss, 2000; Fisher, 1992) • Low status males • Limited to monogamy • Unequal sex ratio – more coercive, violent strategies (Malamuth, 1998; Thornhill & Palmer, 2000) • Less to loose? • What about date rape?

  13. Blame it on testosterone? • Men who are married have lower testosterone levels than their unmarried peers (Booth & Dabbs, 1993; Burnham et al., 2003) • Even lower levels in men whose wives are pregnant, and desire children only with their partner (Gray, Kehlenberg, Barrett, Lipson, & Ellison, 2002; Hirschenhauser, Frigerio, Grammer, & Magnusson, 2002) • Men with high testosterone levels • More sexual partners • Initial sexual encounters at a younger age • Higher sperm counts • Divorce more frequently • More likely to have extramarital affairs (G.M. Alexander & Sherwin, 1991) • The digit test (Fowler et al., 2003) • 2D: 4D low – more STM • More children, more competitive and assertive, judged to be more attractive

  14. What’s the Down-Side? • Damage to reputation • Decreased parental investment, decreases the likelihood a child will survive • Violence • Divorce (Buss, 2005)

  15. Health Risks and STM • Prostitution - “The Oldest Profession” • Men – increased desire for casual sex Women – economics force them to exchange sex for resources Would STS change if prostitution was legalized? • Sexually Transmitted Diseases • HPV • 50% of sexually active men and women in America will contract • Chlamydia • 2.8 million Americans each year • HIV/AIDS • 64% - Sub Saharan Africa • 30% -South and Central America http://www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/default.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5531a1.htm

  16. Evidence of Women’s Short Term Mating Behavior • High frequency of male short-term mating necessitates willing females (Buss, 2004) • Orgasm – more sperm is retained • EPC likely to coincide with ovulation (Barker & Beliis, 1995) • More likely to orgasm with Short-term partner ( Buss, 2003) • 20-50% of American women reported having an extramarital affair (Anathasiou et al., 1970; Buss, 1994; Glass & Wright, 1992; Hunt, 1974; Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953)

  17. Why women pursue STM • Resource Hypotheses (Symons, 1979) • Paternity confusion (Hrdy, 1981). • Protection (Smith, 1984; Smuts 1985) • Status Enhancement (Smith, 1984) • Problems with this hypothesis? • Genetic Benefit Hypotheses • Sexy Son Hypothesis (Fisher, 1958) • Genetic Diversity (Smith, 1984) • Mate Switching • mate no longer able to provide

  18. More Support for the Good Genes Hypothesis • Symmetrical men tend to engage in short-term encounters with more women who are already in relationships (Buss, 2004) • Do not experience benefits of long-term commitment • The opposite qualities are sought when women choose a monogamous partner (B.J Ellis, 1992, Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990, as cited in Buss, 2005) • Attractive men are favored for STM because women want other women find their partner attractive (Buss & Schmitt 1993; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997 as cited in Buss, 2005) What evolutionary advantage might this serve?

  19. Bad Reputations, Pregnancy, and Violence • Promiscuity – damages a woman’s ability to initiate and maintain long-term relationships (Buss, 2004) • Pregnancy – higher infanticide (Daly & Wilson, 1988 as cited in Buss, 2004) • Women who primarily pursue STS are at greater risk for sexual abuse • No mate for long term protection • Date rape (Muehlnhard & Linton, 1987 as cited in Buss, 2004) • Abandonment by husband ( Symons, 1993 as cited in Buss, 2004)

  20. EPC: “Social Monogamy need not imply sexual monogamy” (Buss, 2005, p. 348) • Female benefits (Buss, 2000 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Direct • Resources • Confusion of paternity • Genetic • Intrinsically good genes • Compatible genes • Diverse genes • Male Costs (Buss, 2000 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Effort • Injury • Loss of current partner • Overall, “modest and variable across populations” (Buss, 2005, p. 362)

  21. Variations in Female Sexual Strategies • Increased interest in pursuing men outside their relationship during fertile period of cycle (U. Mueller& Mazar, 1997; Penton-Voak & Chen, 2004; Perrett et al., 1999 as cited in Buss, 2005) • More attraction to masculine features • Prominent brows • Large chins • Deeper voices • Markers of testosterone and immunocompetence (Gangestad & Thornhill, 2003 as cited in Buss, 2005)

  22. Ovulation and STM • When not fertile, women could only suffer the costs of EPCs, not reap the benefits • Increased interest in genetic-benefits for offspring relative to fertility may be an adaptation to this problem (Benshoof & Thornhill, 1979 As cited in Buss, 2005)

  23. Concealed Ovulation • Cuckoldry Hypothesis: Concealed ovulation may prevent men from successfully engaging in more extreme types of mate guarding when partner is ovulating (Benshoof & Thornhill, 1979; Symmons, 1979 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Female better able to seek out “good genes” • Paternity Confusion • Prevent harm to child and self (Hrdy, 1979 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Limited support – most plausible when females mate promiscuously, assumes minimal male investment (Dixson, 1998 as cited in Buss, 2005)

  24. Advantages of an Affair • Male physical Attractiveness • Sexy Son Hypothesis (Buss & Schmitt, 1993, Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; Kenrick et al., 1990 as cited in Buss, 2005)) • Dissatisfied with partner • Mate Switching Hypothesis • Love and emotional intimacy sited as the most compelling reasons women engage in EPC • 77% of women vs. 43% of men (Glass and Wright, 1992 as cited in Buss, 2005)

  25. Does EPC in females vary as a function of mate attractiveness? • Gangestad &, Thornhill et al. (as cited in Buss, 2005) asked couples to each complete a survey about events in the past two days • High fertility day • Women with less symmetrical partners were significantly more attracted to extra-pair men • Women with symmetrical partners reported increased attraction to their mates • Luteal Phase

  26. Male Promiscuity and Attractiveness • Most likely to engage in STS when they possess physical features most valued by women • Low levels of genetic mutations – SYMMETRY • Women seeking ST encounters are most concerned with physical attractiveness (Buss, 2005) • Cross cultural study by Schmitt (as cited in Buss, 2005) • Men in almost all cultures who find themselves attractive are more likely than other men to engage in STS • Male mate guarding may increase in less sexy men who are good providers when their partners are fertile (Haselton & Geangestad, 2004 as cited in Buss 2005) Could other factors explain these findings?

  27. Sociosexuality (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990) Restricted Unrestricted • Differences in perceived benefits • Sexual skills • Experimentation and orgasm • Resources • “Unrestricted women” are more likely to have sex without strong indication of commitment from the man (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990) What could these two factors be indicators of?

  28. Socio psychological Explanations • Mate value – “one’s overall desirability to the opposite sex” (Buss, 2004, p. 184) • High Mate Value Men – high end of SOI – short-term strategy • Women – low self-esteem (not mate value) correlated with short-term strategies • Father Absence – “mating-age” (Buss, 2005, p. 276) men are not dependable • Cross-cultural support - Mayan and Belize (Waynforth, Hurtado, & Hill, 1998). • Onset of puberty, and sexual intercourse occur sooner, increase likelihood of STS (Ellis, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettis, & Bates, 1999; Surbey, 1998) • Dysfunctional relationships with parents linked to promiscuity in both sexes (Walsh, 1995, 1999)

  29. Stressful Environment, Insecure Attachment, and Short-term Strategies • Opportunistic Reproductive Strategies • Children exposed to high stress, insecure parent-child attachment (Belskey et al., 1991 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Dismissing form of insecure attachment – male STM • Fearful preoccupied form of attachment – female STM (Schmitt, 2004 as cited in Buss, 2005) • Early physical maturation • Investing Reproductive Strategies • Low childhood stress, more supportive environments • Chisholm (as cited in Buss, 2005) mortality and fertility may provide adaptivecues to shift sexual strategies What does this say about Evolutionary theory?

  30. Global Environment and Sociosexuality • Sex Ratio • Men favored- better able to conduct short-term relationships • Women favored- both sexes engage in more long-term relationships (Buss, 2005)

  31. Life Transitions • 30’s peak sexuality(Hook, 1981; Naeye, 1983 as cited in Buss, 2004) • Percentage of fertile ovulatory cycles peaks at 70% • Increase likelihood of conceiving with long-term partner • Encourage EPC to increase the “genetic quality or diversity of their offspring” ( Baker & Bellis, 1995; R.L. Smith, 1984 as cited in Buss, 2005). • Adolescent promiscuity - normal development (Buss, 2004) • Encouraged in Mehinaku of Amizonia (Gregor, 1985 as cited in Buss, 2004)

  32. Now What? • Short-term mating behavior is an important part of the human sexual experience • Remember that along with the benefits, there is considerable risk • Not likely to see changes in short-term behavior • Precaution must be taken to avoid harm to ones-self and potential partners

  33. References Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed). Austin, TX: Pearson Education. Buss, D.M. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/default.htm, accessed Sept. 30, 2006. Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5531a1.htm, accessed Sept. 30, 2006 Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J. Pettit, G. S., Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absences place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74, 801-821. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1992) Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31-51.

More Related