Title: Why Men are Stags but Women are Slags
1Why Men are Stags but Women are Slags
- From an Evolutionary Perspective
2Rebeccaone Loos woman! (The Sun, April 2004)
3The double standard
- Studies show that female promiscuity is viewed
more negatively than male promiscuity. - (Robinson, I. et al. 1991 Dankonkski, M.E., et
al. 1996). - Is there an evolutionary basis for this double
standard?
4Traditional evolutionary theory
- Males
- Each new partner offers a very real chance to
get more genes into the next generation.
(Wright,R. 1995).
- Females
- Increase their reproductive success by selecting
mates with high genetic quality.
5Parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972)
- Women
- The more investing sex - less inclined to seek
multiple sexual partners.
- Men
- The less investing sex - more inclined to seek
multiple sexual partners.
(Buss, D.M. 1994 Daly, M., Wilson, M. 1988).
6Paternity uncertainty
- A problem unique to men
- not long for this world are the genes of the man
who spends time rearing children who arent his
own (Wright, R. 1995). - Men adapt to paternity uncertainty by exerting
sexual control over women - Labelling promiscuous women as slags
- A method of sexual control
- Identifies certain women as only suitable for
short term mating (Buss, D.M. 1989).
7Paternal assurance strategies
- Strategies for overcoming the problem of
paternity uncertainty - Jealous guarding of mates to prevent sexual
contact with other men. - Labelling promiscuous women in order to avoid
them because promiscuity is linked to infidelity
(Hughes, S. M., Gallup, G. G. 2002). - Branding promiscuous females as slags, is a
paternal assurance strategy.
8Why are only men stags?
- Mens main concern
- Assurance of paternity.
- Most valued characteristic (in a long term mate)
Fidelity.
- Womens main concern
- Securing resources for their offspring.
- Most valued characteristic Provision of
resources.
- Cultural studies (Buss, D.M. et al., 1989).
- Sex Differences in physiological responses to
- infidelity (Buss, D.M., Schmitt, D.P. 1993).
9But women are promiscuous...
Factors which suggest that women are more
promiscuous than evolutionary theory would
suggest
- Animal studies.
- Cultural studies (Buss, D.M. 1994, Lehrman, S.
2002). - Maths.
- The evolution of male jealousy.
10 Female promiscuity is evolutionary advantageous!
- 5 categories of adaptive benefits for female
promiscuity (Grieling, S.M., Buss, D.M. 2000) - Paternity confusion hypothesis.
- Genetic diversity hypothesis.
- Mate switching hypothesis.
- Honing mating skills hypothesis.
- Mate manipulation hypothesis.
11Why does female promiscuity remain taboo?
- Adaptive benefits are less obvious than for men.
- The costs outweigh the benefits.
- Most researchers are men.
12Conclusion Why promiscuous men are stags but
promiscuous women are slags
- Female promiscuity is not justified by
traditional evolutionary theory but male
promiscuity is. - Female promiscuity leads to Paternity
Uncertainty, no such consequence of male
promiscuity.
13Conclusion Why promiscuous men are stags but
promiscuous women are slags
- Promiscuity in females indicates a loss of the
most valued characteristic in a female mate
fidelity. - Promiscuous males can still provide the most
valued characteristic for females that of
resource provision. - Prevalence and Evolutionary benefits of female
promiscuity.
14References
- Birkhead, T. (1998). Sex roles and sexual
selection. Animal behaviour, 56 (6), 113-120. - Buss, D. (1994). The Evolution of Desire
Strategies of Human Mating. New York New York
Basic Books. - Buss, D.M. (2002). The strategies of human
mating. Exploring animal behaviour, 240-251. - Buss, D.M., Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual
strategies theory An evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review,100, 204-232 - Daly, M., Wilson, M.(1988). Homicide.
Hawthorne New York Aldine. - Dankoski, M.E., Payer, R. Steinberg, M. (1996).
Broadening the concept of adolescent promiscuity
Male accountability made visible and the
implications for a family therapist. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 367-381.
15References
- Hughes, S.M., Gallup, G.G. (2002). Sex
differences in morphological predictors of sexual
behaviour Shoulder to hip and waist to hip
ratios. Evolution Human behaviour, 24, 173-178. - Greiling, M., Buss, D.M. (2000). Womens sexual
strategies the hidden dimension of extra pair
mating. Personality and individual differences,
28, 929-963. - Lehrman, S. (2002). The Virtues of Promiscuity.
Available at www.Alternet.org.com (accessed
20/4/2004) - Robinson, I., Ziss, K., Ganza, B., Katz, S.
(1991). Twenty years of the sexual revolution,
1965-1985 An update. Journal of Marriage
Family, 53, 216-220. - Wright, R. (1994). The Moral animal Why we are
the way we are. UK Pantheon.