• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double standard?

Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double standard?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 83.3%
  • No

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • Total voters
    6

naturalrights

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
34
Reaction score
11
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Alright, so this post is regarding the supposed double standard wherein woman are perceived as less desirable when promiscuous when compared to the desirability level of similarly promiscuous men.

OK, so here is something I learned in my Evolutionary Psychology class about 5 years ago:

Evolutionary psychology explains the sexual double standard by noting that men unconsciously want their genes passed on and not another man’s genes, especially if they will be providing resources to the child. Therefore, female promiscuity is highly undesired by men. On the other hand, while women do not like male promiscuity either, they do not see male promiscuity as being at the same level of undesirability that men do for women. For example, studies have shown that women are more jealous about a man being intimate (not necessarily sexually) with another woman than they are with them simply having sex with another woman.

Additionally, consider the following theory:

Evolutionary psychology has been used to explain the gender differences in sexual behaviors. According to this perspective, gender differences have developed through human evolution because they are related to reproductive capacities (Weiderman, 1993). Because men have greater reproductive capacities, it is considered beneficial for them to inseminate as many females as possible to maximize the survival of their offspring (Oliver & Shibley Hyde, 1993; Walsh, 1993).

Does the Sexual Double Standard Still Exist? Perceptions of University Women | Journal of Sex Research | Find Articles

Therefore, because promiscuity appears to be more innate for men to be more promiscuous than women are, it is something that has, over time, been found to be more acceptable.

So, I ask, do you think that these findings and theories contribute to why there is a sexual double standard regarding promiscuity for males versus females?
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

I voted yes.

Something I've discussed at length with friends and psychology and biology teachers/professors before. You did a pretty good job of summing up the theory in your post.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

I voted yes.

Something I've discussed at length with friends and psychology and biology teachers/professors before. You did a pretty good job of summing up the theory in your post.

Yeah I agree, the reasoning behind this theory is sound
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

Yeah I agree, the reasoning behind this theory is sound

I wouldn't necessarily say the theory itself is sound beyond reproach, but it's a plausible and perhaps the best explanation for why the double standard exists.
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

I wouldn't necessarily say the theory itself is sound beyond reproach, but it's a plausible and perhaps the best explanation for why the double standard exists.

Yes, that's what I mean by sound :) (of course)
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

Alright, so this post is regarding the supposed double standard wherein woman are perceived as less desirable when promiscuous when compared to the desirability level of similarly promiscuous men.

OK, so here is something I learned in my Evolutionary Psychology class about 5 years ago:

Evolutionary psychology explains the sexual double standard by noting that men unconsciously want their genes passed on and not another man’s genes, especially if they will be providing resources to the child. Therefore, female promiscuity is highly undesired by men. On the other hand, while women do not like male promiscuity either, they do not see male promiscuity as being at the same level of undesirability that men do for women. For example, studies have shown that women are more jealous about a man being intimate (not necessarily sexually) with another woman than they are with them simply having sex with another woman.

Additionally, consider the following theory:

Evolutionary psychology has been used to explain the gender differences in sexual behaviors. According to this perspective, gender differences have developed through human evolution because they are related to reproductive capacities (Weiderman, 1993). Because men have greater reproductive capacities, it is considered beneficial for them to inseminate as many females as possible to maximize the survival of their offspring (Oliver & Shibley Hyde, 1993; Walsh, 1993).

Does the Sexual Double Standard Still Exist? Perceptions of University Women | Journal of Sex Research | Find Articles

Therefore, because promiscuity appears to be more innate for men to be more promiscuous than women are, it is something that has, over time, been found to be more acceptable.

So, I ask, do you think that these findings and theories contribute to why there is a sexual double standard regarding promiscuity for males versus females?

Recommended reading: Amazon.com: MOTHER NATURE: NATURAL SELECTION AND THE FEMALE OF THE SPECIES: Sarah Blaffer Hrdy: Books

Hrdy(that is spelled correctly) did some wonderful work on the topic of females and evolution. Not only is this book and her other works great looks on how females of a species are involved in the evolutionary process, but the books, and especially this one, are wonderfully written and just downright fascinating.
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

History is nice, but we should be beyond that.
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

I would say no

The double standard is one that has been enforced culturally not because of biology

The double standard exists because of the effects of promiscuity. Women in the past would get pregnant, a visible and negative aspect of having multiple sex partners especially as in the past a woman with a child not fathered by her husband would have a very difficult time to earn a living. From a cultural standpoing promiscuous women in the past would have been a bad thing

Now with the advent of the birth control pill and women having strong careers that would allow many to raise a child by themselves the double standard is going away in many larger cities. Women now can have as many sexual partners as men can and face the same negative or positive outcomes from it. Not so in the past

Evolutionary aspects of sex drive men to seek multiple partners, and women to seek different types of partners at differnent times of the month, but as a driving factor in making promiscuos women a negative cultural trait for women, I doub it.
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

I would say no

The double standard is one that has been enforced culturally not because of biology

The double standard exists because of the effects of promiscuity. Women in the past would get pregnant, a visible and negative aspect of having multiple sex partners especially as in the past a woman with a child not fathered by her husband would have a very difficult time to earn a living. From a cultural standpoing promiscuous women in the past would have been a bad thing

Now with the advent of the birth control pill and women having strong careers that would allow many to raise a child by themselves the double standard is going away in many larger cities. Women now can have as many sexual partners as men can and face the same negative or positive outcomes from it. Not so in the past

Evolutionary aspects of sex drive men to seek multiple partners, and women to seek different types of partners at differnent times of the month, but as a driving factor in making promiscuos women a negative cultural trait for women, I doub it.

Your opinion is based on just guessing, right?
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

Your opinion is based on just guessing, right?

Rational observation and of an understanding of the past and present cultural trends

Are not women in general today, at least those in larger cities and not subject to religous cultural morals more promiscous then in the past?

Is it not easier for women today to be promiscous then in the past (birth control, careers of their own, instead of being financially dependant on a male)

The double standard is a cultural aspect based on certain biological traits like jealousy affedt both sexs, but wowen in the past did not have much power to cause the other to face the negative aspect of jealousy. Women tend to suffer more from jealous rages from men (being killed, beaten etc). Men had the power to enforce the cultural aspect of the double standard, women did not. That is changing, and so is the power of the double standard
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

Rational observation and of an understanding of the past and present cultural trends

Are not women in general today, at least those in larger cities and not subject to religous cultural morals more promiscous then in the past?

Is it not easier for women today to be promiscous then in the past (birth control, careers of their own, instead of being financially dependant on a male)

The double standard is a cultural aspect based on certain biological traits like jealousy affedt both sexs, but wowen in the past did not have much power to cause the other to face the negative aspect of jealousy. Women tend to suffer more from jealous rages from men (being killed, beaten etc). Men had the power to enforce the cultural aspect of the double standard, women did not. That is changing, and so is the power of the double standard

So what your saying is that the male vs female "Horny Ratio" as it is currently...as opposed to say 50 thousand years ago is: Men are digressing and women are progressing in their horniness because of social freedoms that women have acquired over time?

So the horniness levels in men have historically been much higher because men have been able to strong arm their sexual desires and at the same time oppress women however they wish in other areas of their lives using the same strong arm tactics?
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

It certainly makes sense, but I would suspect that the fact that, historically, there has been a power imbalance between men and women is also playing a significant role. Even if we were to assume that men and women both equally valued...chastity - no that's not quite right, what's the opposite of promisicuous - in their partners, it wouldn't be surprising for a cultural bias against female promiscuity to emerge, simply because men have had a greater (or perhaps I should say "more direct") role in the development of society.
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

There are sociobiological benefits to sexual prudence, the most obvious being the containment of disease (and not just venereal disease but any disease that is more easily communicable through intimate relations). In primeval human societies, the more promiscuous communities would tend to be less healthy, and more easily dominated by the less promiscuous and more healthy.

But what is more, human civilization is based upon the deliberate social inhibition of the wanton sex drive. It is upon the primeval social construct of one man to one woman that higher organized human societies were possible. Indeed, this is was the very impetus for the rite of marriage.

One can imagine the primeval human society before the advent of this social construct: the alpha male would have his pick of the women. The beta males would have to oblige him. If any of the betas objected, they might challenge the alpha, but at the risk of getting beaten to death. Of course, the women would be forced to oblige the alpha male for similar reasons as well.

But then, humans became especially adept at making tools, including the sort of tools that could be used to smash in the skulls of prey or predator, or even an alpha male when he was looking the other way. Before long, the primeval human society became a murderous rogue's gallery as the equalizing effects of weapons technology overturned the naturally-endowed hierarchy of physical brawn. At this point, the smart society implemented the one woman per man rule in order to keep the peace between men. In other words, this primeval sexual taboo was created by primeval men for primeval men so to keep them from killing each other. The health and well-being of the women were not the central concern. Indeed, women were now recognized as the central cause of civil disruption between men, and therefore the central cause of disruption within the entire clan, and none more so than the promiscuous woman.
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

So what your saying is that the male vs female "Horny Ratio" as it is currently...as opposed to say 50 thousand years ago is: Men are digressing and women are progressing in their horniness because of social freedoms that women have acquired over time?

So the horniness levels in men have historically been much higher because men have been able to strong arm their sexual desires and at the same time oppress women however they wish in other areas of their lives using the same strong arm tactics?

You would notice I never stated anything about men becoming less horny or women becoming more horny. I stated that women today can express thier horniness at the same level as men do and see the same level of effects positive or negative

Not getting pregnant, not seeing their financial well being threatened to dramatically by cheating

I am saying that alot of women like sex just as much as men do, but in the past could not engage in it with people because of the negative social/cultural/economic effects that could result,
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

You would notice I never stated anything about men becoming less horny or women becoming more horny. I stated that women today can express thier horniness at the same level as men do and see the same level of effects positive or negative

Not getting pregnant, not seeing their financial well being threatened to dramatically by cheating

I am saying that alot of women like sex just as much as men do, but in the past could not engage in it with people because of the negative social/cultural/economic effects that could result,

So therefore...no "evolutionary connection to sexual double standards?" Just shifts in social connections?
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

So therefore...no "evolutionary connection to sexual double standards?" Just shifts in social connections?

The evolutionary connection would be due to the physical size and power of men in comparison to women, generally seeing men being the dominate sex in the vast majority of societies, even ancient ones. Those who have the power to set the rules also have the power to break them with fewer negative effects (ie being beaten or killed is far more common an event for women then it is for men who cheat)
 
Re: Does evolutionary theory of mating strategies account for the sexual double stand

The evolutionary connection would be due to the physical size and power of men in comparison to women, generally seeing men being the dominate sex in the vast majority of societies, even ancient ones. Those who have the power to set the rules also have the power to break them with fewer negative effects (ie being beaten or killed is far more common an event for women then it is for men who cheat)

In evolution we can't ignore physical, social, and mental affects. Evolution is complicated. It's about adaption. The biological aspects of evolution is but one part in several that effect change. So in that respect, I don't necessarily disagree with the adaption changes that have occurred that has created shifts in sexual behaviors. Men still strong arm, women are still submissive, but yes, its changing.
 
Back
Top Bottom