Who Is More Selective About Sex and Partnering: Men or Women?
Written on
Understanding Mating Preferences
In the search for romantic connections, one might wonder whether employing a singular approach to sexual relationships is more effective than adopting multiple strategies.
Pluralistic evolutionary theories regarding human mating suggest that Darwinian sexual selection has favored adaptable strategies that respond flexibly to varying situations (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Belsky, 1999). This multifaceted perspective posits that individuals utilize both long-term and short-term mating strategies (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Lancaster, 1989).
The theory implies that men and women exhibit distinct patterns of sexual desire that lead to diverse mating behaviors. For instance, men's inclination towards short-term partners often stems from a desire for sexual variety. Conversely, women's pursuit of short-term relationships is typically driven by the need to secure partners with high genetic quality rather than sheer quantity (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
Given that the short-term mating strategies of men and women address different adaptive challenges, it is anticipated that men, on average, will express a greater preference for sexual diversity compared to women. Research led by David Schmitt (2003) supports this notion, revealing cross-cultural differences in the desire for sexual variety among 16,288 participants from ten major regions worldwide, including North America and Asia.
The Foundation of Parental Investment Theory
Parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) serves as a cornerstone for most evolutionary frameworks surrounding human mating. In numerous species, particularly mammals, females tend to invest more time and resources into offspring care compared to males. However, in certain species, such as seahorses, males are the primary caregivers (Wilson et al., 2001; Gwynne, 1984).
This theory posits that the level of parental investment varies across species, influencing mate selection strategies. Generally, the sex that invests more tends to be more selective in choosing partners, while the less investing sex is inclined to have multiple partners with less courtship effort (Andersson, 1994; Bateson, 1983; Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1992; Maynard Smith, 1977).
The psychological mechanisms that shape women's choices in sexual partners are influenced by the potential costs of poor mate selection. Despite the fact that human males invest significantly in their offspring, women are still the primary caregivers across various cultures (Low, 1989).
The disparity in parental investment becomes particularly evident when considering the minimal commitment necessary for successful reproduction (Symons, 1979). Biologically, women endure the physical, emotional, and time-consuming implications of a lengthy gestation period, while men's biological role is limited to sperm contribution. Furthermore, women historically bear the costs of lactation, which restricts their ability to seek additional mates and invest in other offspring during this period.
Analyzing these differences through the lens of parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972), it follows that men, as the lesser investing sex, tend to exhibit less selectiveness in their mate choices and greater competition with other males (i.e., intrasexual competition). This is corroborated by research indicating that men experience higher mortality rates, delayed maturation, riskier life choices, and often possess greater physical aggression (Alexander & Noonan, 1979; Geary, 1998; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Archer & Lloyd, 2002). Thus, in the realm of short-term mating, women typically demonstrate greater selectiveness regarding their partners (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992; Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, ample evidence suggests that men, when seeking short-term relationships, are inclined to desire numerous sexual partners and are generally quicker to engage in sexual activity. In contrast, women appear to prioritize the quality of their partners over the quantity. This research supports the idea that pluralistic theories of human mating provide a more accurate framework compared to competing models that propose a singular mating strategy for all individuals.
About the Author
Kevin Bennett, PhD, serves as a teaching professor of psychology at The Pennsylvania State University, Beaver Campus, and is a fellow at the Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health. His research explores the intersection of psychological science, urban design, and mental health, focusing on the social, personality, and evolutionary aspects of human behavior within built environments.