Why Men are Stags but Women are Slags - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 15
About This Presentation
Title:

Why Men are Stags but Women are Slags

Description:

Identifies certain women as only suitable for short term mating (Buss, D.M. 1989) ... Buss, D. (1994). The Evolution of ... Greiling, M., & Buss, D.M. (2000) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:93
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: angelina8
Category:
Tags: buss | men | slags | stags | women

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Why Men are Stags but Women are Slags


1
Why Men are Stags but Women are Slags
  • From an Evolutionary Perspective

2
Rebeccaone Loos woman! (The Sun, April 2004)

3
The 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?

4
Traditional 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.

5
Parental 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).
6
Paternity 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).

7
Paternal 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.

8
Why 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).

9
But 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.

11
Why does female promiscuity remain taboo?
  • Adaptive benefits are less obvious than for men.
  • The costs outweigh the benefits.
  • Most researchers are men.

12
Conclusion 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.

13
Conclusion 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.

14
References
  • 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.

15
References
  • 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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com