Research Paper on Sex and Desire/Attraction

Evolutionary theory says that men and women use different strategies when it comes to picking a mate because they have different evolutionary priorities. While both sexes prioritize looks, women also want a man who has access to resources and who can earn a living. This is based on the theory that women are the bearers and caregivers of offspring. It takes up their time and energy to care for young, so their mate must furnish the resources that support them in this endeavor. After all, evolution is about continuing the species and the young are prioritized in that mindset. Parental investment theory supports this idea. However, people may not want children or may be interested in a member of the same sex when they are looking for a mate, so parental investment is not the only theory that can be applied to mate selection behavior. Speciation theory also supports the idea that mate selection traits are universal and evolutionary. Yet, some researchers in the field of evolutionary mating strategies say that because humans have evolved, and society has become more equal for both sexes, these evolutionary cues that seem universal are not the only factors involved in mate selection. They are still present, but more learned methods (as opposed to evolutionary methods) of mate selection are being used especially in cultures where gender parity is high. Some claim that this is a necessity if humans are ever going to reach a point where the sexes are considered equal. Those that hold on to the idea that evolution is all that is involved in mate selection seem to also hold on to the notion that the sexes cannot be equal.

Research in Favor of Learned Methods of Mate Selection

The differences between the mating strategies that men and women use are evolutionary adaptations that are now genetic in humans, but that does not mean that other factors do not influence them as well. Women aim for reproductive success in that they want a mate that will provide the resources necessary to raise young. Men want reproductive success but that for them is being able to find fertile females who will bear the young. Zentner and Mitura (2012) writing in the journal, Psychological Science say that if that theory is true, then women would look for men with resources such as wealth or the ability to make money and men would look for young women with certain physical cues that indicate fertility (Zentner & Mitura, 2012, p. 1176). However, they contend that because of the modernization of society and the continuing trend toward gender parity, more learned traits have become the norm in mate selection for both sexes, but perhaps moreso in females since they now do not need to find a man with resources because they have their own resources in a gender equal society.

Others resarchers, such as Svensson, Runemark, Verzijden, and Wellenreuther (2014) of Proceedings: Biological Science, explain that mate selection may be due to greater variations in phenotypes in humans who have evolved based on environmental factors. This is the nature/nurture theory of mate selection. Svensson, Runemark, Verzijden, and Wellenreuther (2014) also point out that to what extent evolution and environment factors influence mate selection is unknown, but they believe that both influence (Svensson, Runemark, Verzijden, & Wellenreuther, 2014, p.1). Some believe that not only the environment but also ecology figure into mate selection. Munro, Flood, McKellar, and Reudink (2014) of the journal, Behaviour, cite studies that have been done regarding sex differences in mate preferences. Most of these studies have been conducted in constant environments, and these researchers believe that in settings where environmental or ecological conditions change frequently preferred mate characteristics of females especially could also change with the conditions meaning mate selection traits may be context-dependent rather than strictly evolutionary. Using online dating ads from across Canada, Munro, Flood, McKellar, and Reudink (2014) found that not only did sex influence mate selection on several different mate selection characteristics, but so did age and several other environmental and economic traits such as sex ratio, population size, population density and population income. This, according to these researchers demonstrates that mate preference is not influenced only by evolution (Munro, Flood, McKellar, & Reudink, 2014, p. 2072). Other factors may also support the theory that both evolution and environment affect mate selection traits too.

Some procreation takes place in a short-term context. In other words, a woman can get pregnant from having unprotected sex with a “one night stand.” Selecting a short-term mate may depend only upon how much alcohol she has consumed or who is available when she has the urge to have sex. One of those conditions can be seen as evolutionary, but not both. Jonason, Raulston, and Rotolo (2012) of the Journal of Social Psychology say that both sexes prioritize an attractive face over an attractive body for long-term mates, but facial attractiveness only is more important in short-term mates. An attractive face may indicate long-term fecundity and health, but it is also more pleasant to wake up to the morning after a one-night stand. An attractive face may also indicate other positive traits such as self-confidence and vigor. These traits are more learned and environmental than evolutionary though because they do not portend fertility desired in long-term mates (Jonason, Raulston, & Rotolo, 2012, p. 182). While these studies and many others not mentioned appear to support the theory that mate selection is influenced by both evolution and environment, there are still those scientists who maintain that mate selection strategies, even if they seem learned or influenced by environmental factors, are still strictly evolutionary.

Research that Supports Evolutionary Influence on Mate Selection Strategies

Some researchers believe that even the way the environment influences mate selection is a product of evolution. After all, evolution is adaptation, and that, some researchers contend, is what is happening when mate selection strategies change due to the circumstances presented to people looking for mates. Schmitt (2012) of Evolutionary Psychology says that evolutionary psychologists expect that the environment and culture will influence mate selection preferences. Gender parity may also influence the strategies used to select mates for women. Schmitt (2012) says that it is wrong to think that evolved mate selection strategies are fixed. In a way, Schmitt (2012) supports the argument that evolution is not the only influence on mate selection preferences, but instead of saying that other factors also influence them, he says that those factors are aspects of evolution.

Researchers that offer better evidence of what Schmitt (2012) is contending include Li, Valentine, and Patel (2011) writing in the journal, Personality and Individual Differences. They cite a study that involved participants from 33 countries, 6 continents and 5 islands that found the most important mate selection trait for women did not vary. It was consistently resource acquisition ability. For men, the most important trait was reproductive capacity (Li, Valentine, & Patel, 2011, p. 2). The fact that such a widely diverse group of people all selected the same mate selection traits seems to indicate that strategies are the result of evolution and not environmental influence.

Ironically, some of the arguments that favor the evolution-only contention are also remarkably sexist, which seem to lend to the theory that increased gender parity leads to the belief that evolution is not the only factor working when it comes to mate selection strategies. Schwarz and Hassebrauck (2012) of Human Nature explain that women want men who are wealthy, generous, smart, dominant, reliable, kind, humorous and nice. They attribute this to the Sexual Strategies Theory and to parental investment theory. These theories, according to Schwarz and Hassebrauck (2012), make women far more picky than men when it comes to a mate. Men, these researchers say, just want a good looking woman who can be a good domestic partner so she can stay home and have babies. Simple evolution they claim. Even when people age and no longer are concerned about raising children, Schwarz and Hassebrauck (2012) contend, these mate selection critieria stay in place because evolution dictated that is the way men and women look for one another (Schwarz & Hassebrauck, 2012, p. 461). It is fairly simple to see why many studies have been done to explore the notion that mate selection preferences have evolved and will not evolve any further despite the influences of gender parity. They were done to refute these types of sexist contentions that have served only to keep women in subjection to men.

Another group of researchers, Conroy-Beam, Buss, Pham, & Shackelford (2015) who published their findings in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin cite some of the same studies that Schwartz and Hassebrauck (2012) do. They also make some of the same contentions as Schwartz and Hassebrauck (2012). For instance, they say that the differences in mate selection strategies of males and females are obviously patterned on evolutionary necessities and that even across cultures, mate selection preferences appear to be universal. They do concede though that mate selection strategies are complicated and show great variation (Conroy-Beam, Buss, Pham, & Shackelford, 2015, p. 1082). They reason that mate selection is so complex is that it is one of the most important aspects of evolution. For Conroy-Beam, Buss, Pham, and Shackleford (2015) the revelation from their studies is that male and female humans are not that much alike even though biologically they are similar (Conroy-Beam, Buss, Pham, & Shackelford, 2015, p. 1091). This is not news to most people. It is also support for the theory that evolution may have initiated mate selection strategies to rely on features of the opposite sex that are best for reproductive purposes, but partly because of the differenes in not just the sexes but also between individuals, mate selection preferences have been influenced by environmental factors also.

Conclusion

Perhaps environmental influence can be seen as an aspect of evolution in that it is adaptation that triggers evolution. In that sense, perhaps mate selection strategies are evolutionary, but they have an environmental influene involved as well. One of those influences is gender parity. The best proof of this is seen in homosexual and lesbian mate selection. The procreation element is not a factor for homosexual/lesbian mates. That then skews the sexist argument that men look for women who can stay home and be barefoot and pregnant while women look for a man who can furnish her with all the bonbons she wants to eat while in this barefoot and pregnant state. Perhaps if all of science were to get on board the gender parity bus, the rest of society may follow.

References

Li, N. P., Valentine, K. A., & Patel, L. (2011). Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(4), 291-294. Retrieved from http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/...

Munro, K. R., Flood, N. J., McKellar, A. E., & Reudink, M. W. (2014). Female mate preference varies with age and environmental conditions. Behavior, 151(14), 2059-2081. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2...

Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23(4), 447-466. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/acade...

Annotated Bibliography

Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1082-1093. Retrieved from https://labs.la.utexas.edu/bus...
Sexual dimorphism refers to the differences in appearance between the two sexes of a species such as height, body structure, facial hair and so on. Conroy-Beam, Buss, Pham and Shackleford (2015) say that human sexual dimorphism suggest different evolutionary pasts for the two sexes. For instance, the authors point out that for females especially, mate selection is important because they must invest time and energy into caring for young, which means they need a mate who will provide resources for them while they care for young. When the authors of this article researched if sexual dimorphism in humans was cultural or evolutionary, they determined that it was largely evolutionary because of reasons such as the example of females needing to find a mate to furnish resources for her while raising young. For females then, mate selection is significant. The study concludes that mate selection is important and driven by evolution.

Jonason, P. K., Raulston, T., & Rotolo, A. (2012). More than just a pretty face and a hot body: Multiple cues in mate-choice. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 174-184. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com/C...
Jonason, Raulston, and Rotolo (2012) look at the specific mate preference characteristics of face and body attraction. The authors believe that face and body are two of the most common and important aspects of mate selection preference and may be related to fertility. However, the mate preference traits of attractive face and body may apply more to short-term mates rather than long-term mates. The authors of this article surveyed college students to see what their face and body preferences were and concluded that face and body are equally important to selection, but mainly for short-term mate selection. Face attractiveness was more important to long-term mate selection.

Schmitt, D. P. (2012). Stepping out of the Caveman's Shadow: Nations' Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 720-726. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/d...
Schmitt (2012) responds to Zentner and Mitura (2012) who conclude that mate selection preferences become less noticeable as societies become more egalitarian. Schmitt (2012) points out specific traits such as status-related mate selection preferences. He notes that the results that Zentner and Mitura (2012) got from their studies, the status-related preference diminishes in countries with greater gender equality because females can provide resources for themselves whereas the Good Looks mate preferences are similar to begin with and stay similar regardless of gender parity. Schmitt (2012) disagrees with Zentner and Mitura (2012) that culture is more determinant of differences in mate selection than evolution, but concedes that culture does have influence in that area.

Svensson, E. I., Runemark, A., Verzijden, M. N., & Wellenreuther, M. (2014). Sex differences in developmental plasticity and canalization shape population divergence in mate preferences. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 281(1797), 1-8. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4...
Svensson, Runemark, Verzijden, and Wellenreuther (2014) cite speciation theory that says that mate selection differences are evolutionary, but say that the consequences of speciation may be the reason for that. They research how phenotypic plasticity or local adaptation affect mate selection preferences. They use demoiselles, an insect, for their study. The results are that individuals can learn mate preferences, and that is good for divergence in the population if females learn them, but not so beneficial for divergence in the population if males learn them. They think the mate selection preferences that females should learn include fitness of the mate, and the costs and benefits of choosing a particular mate.

Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1176-1185. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/p...
Zentner and Mitura (2012) discuss the view that as society becomes more gender equal, the mate selection differences that are currently the norm should also become more equalized or at similar. The parental investment theory refers to females selecting males that will provide resources for them while they raise young. However, the current male selection focus is on attempting to impregnate as many women as possible. These mate selection preferences have been studied extensively and the consensus is that these are evolutionary tendencies. An alternative theory is social structure theory that says culture determines or at least strongly influences mate selection preferences based upon its norms. Zentner and Mitura (2012) used the responses of 3,177 people to online questionnaires to determine their mate selection preferences and then reviewed 37 studies to see if they could replicate their findings. They conclude that mate selection preferences may be evolutionary, but that the differences erode as society becomes more egalitarian.