The structure of this essay is based on animals and humans mate choice strategies and gender differences and similarities. These factors are intertwined with males and females reproduction success for choosing the right mate and bearing the parental cost involved in the offspring upbringing. (Trivers, 1972, 1985).Animal males from the evolutionary perspectives seek fertile, strong, females as a security for their offspring reproduction. These males’ strategize for their mate choice by advertising their masculinity as men ready for a mate. (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987).The female animals chooses mate base on their sense of security so they prefer males capable to protect and bear the cost of parenting with them.(Trivers,1972).In humans, females prefer wealthy men with high status as mate (Bjorklund & shackleford, 1999; Buss, 1992) whereas males prefer to date young attractive females who considers as fertile with the ability for genes reproduction. …show more content…
In order to understand the present lifestyles relating to different approaches and tactics applied by humans in mate choice preferences, there is the need to refer to Darwin (1859, 1871) evolutionary perspectives. Darwin (1871) sexual selection is the driving force for males and females reproductive quest for their genes survival. These driving forces have been classified into two categories as intra-sexual and intersexual mate selection.Intersexual selection is male sexual selection process whereby males compete with other males and the females choose the strongest as their ideal partner. Intra-sexual selection occurs when the male species fight among themselves and the strongest gain access to females for
While Darwin left the qualities associated with maternity as a given, Gamble describes the results of natural selection in detail. By juxtaposing the “extreme egoism” (86) of males and the “altruism” (86) of females with “the unequal struggle for liberty and justice” (87), Gamble alters the connotations of the qualities of each sex. No longer are men envisioned as physically and mentally superior hunters that provided for families, but instead as tyrannical oppressors in the classic struggle for liberty. Gamble furthers her explanation of male oppression through sexual selection. With this, Gamble turns the connotation of male superiority on its head, suggesting that this supremacy is in fact a societal artifact, not a biological
In the article the researchers were trying to challenge the sexual strategies theory. It seems as though sexual strategies theory is different genders having different preferences when choosing a mate, in the case of long and short term relationships. The hypothesis at first was that both boys and girls felt that attractiveness was important. Girls would be more inclined to date someone because of social status and that boys would be the complete opposite. They also expected that social status would only become important when the person is attractive and social status would be important no matter if the person is attractive on no for girls. The last thing that was tested was according to Ha (2009) “the potential moderator effects of self-perceived mate value on adolescents desire to date with an attractive person.” Also according to Ha (2009) “They hypothesized that boys and girls preference for attractiveness and high social status would be independent of their own perceived mate value.” The information used to come to result of the theory has been known to be collect using surveys ...
...socially directed hormonal instructions which specify that females will want to have children and will therefore find themselves relatively helpless and dependent on males for support and protection. The schema claims that males are innately aggressive and competitive and therefore will dominate over females. The social hegemony of this ideology ensures that we are all raised to practice gender roles which will confirm this vision of the nature of the sexes. Fortunately, our training to gender roles is neither complete nor uniform. As a result, it is possible to point to multitudinous exceptions to, and variations on, these themes. Biological evidence is equivocal about the source of gender roles; psychological androgyny is a widely accepted concept. It seems most likely that gender roles are the result of systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.9
Darwin's General Summary and Conclusions of the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex In the "General Summary and Conclusions" of The Descent of Man, and
Natural and sexual selection are not random processes. If there is no difference between the individuals within the species there would be no selection. Sexual selection is related to mating, it acts on individual’s ability to obtain or successfully copulate with a partner. The idea of sexual selection was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1871; he revealed that there are organisms with traits which are not explained by the concept natural selection, for example the tail of a male peacock. His found two main ways in which sexual selection works, these are intra-sexual competition and inter-sexual selection. Intra sexual competition happens within species, usually between males. They compete against each other to be chosen as a mate by a member of opposite sex. Inter-sexual selection is choosing a mate among the members of opposite sex, usually done by females.
Darwin's theory of sexual selection is an intriguing one because it offers an explanation of human striving and cultural value systems. The theory is that humans who are more sexually desirable will have more offspring and thus their traits will be passed on to future generations to a greater extent than those of less sexually desirable humans. As opposed to Darwin's other theory, natural selection, those who are the best adapted to their environment will be more likely to pass on their genes, or, "survival of the fittest", you might call sexual selection "survival of the sexiest." The theory is intended to in part explain why, when humans diverged from other primates, the human brain tripled in size in just two million years. At first glance, this theory also seems to explain much of the motivation behind human culture and achievement. Upon closer inspection, there are some fairly conspicuous problems with it, especially when it is extended to describe not only human evolution in the distant past but it the present, but it may still be the most plausible explanation available to explain why humans mental capacities have expanded so far beyond those of our primate relatives.
The sexual “arms race” is constantly going on within members of a species. While both male and female are trying to pass on their genes to the next generation, they both try to do this in a different way. Females are attempting to obtain genetic material from the best possible male in order to produce the fittest offspring, while males are trying solely to pass their own genes on to the next generation.
There is no greater illusion of reality, to man, than the act of seduction because at its core, seduction optimizes illusion. There is a place in the brain of man that drives him to develop his own understanding of the world. He does not understand it so he seeks stability in himself through a series of manipulations that develop a sense of alpha superiority- creating a self-made god of his own universe. Seduction is the process that he uses to achieve this. It is primal, it is ritualistic and it is engaging enough that man buys in fully to the invitation to indulge his ego.
Kenrick’s ideas are supported by Buss’ 1994 experiment. Buss surveyed men and women in thirty seven countries to investigate important qualities in the opposite sex. The findings showed that women preferred resourcefulness and dependability whereas men valued chastity and youth. This study appears to support Kenrick’s “Parental Investment Theory” as Buss argues that men evolved to provide for their partners and are attracted to fertile women.
Lenton, A. P., & Francesconi, M. (2010). How humans cognitively manage an abundance of mate options. Psychological Science, 21(4), 528-533.
Evolutionary framework for human mating is based on three elements. First, strategies for mating developed to solve specific problems in human evolutionary history. Second, people behave differently depending on the type of mating involved. There are two types of mating, short term and long term mating. Short term mating is defined as casual sex (i.e. one-night stands and brief affairs). Long term mating is seen as a committed relationship (i.e. dating, going steady, and marriage). Third, males and females developed different strategies due to the difference in problems they have had over the course of human evolution (Buss 241). This paper will examine those strategies specific to males.
Human beings have been, and always will be, dichotomized into either male or female. When determining a person’s sex we often look for differences in facial features, body shape or mannerism’s, but another promising way to determine a persons sex and one that is most often used today, is through gender roles. Gender roles are behaviors that portray masculinity or femininity. The theory behind gender roles through multidisciplinary viewpoints is the focus of this paper. Throughout history and in every culture these roles have shifted and transformed into what society says is expectable. In this analysis, gender roles will be examined through a sociological, biological and evolutionary scope.
Sexual attraction is an everyday part of life that has different effects on each person. In the following paper I am going to discuss the different types of sexual attraction for adolescences ages 12-20, early adulthood ages 20-30, mature adulthood 30-65, and older adults age 65 and older. Sexual attraction: which sex are you attracted to, or are you attracted to both men and women? Then we have sexual behavior: what sex are your partners? And finally, we have sexual identity: how do you think of yourself are you gay, straight, or bisexual? Some of us develop feelings of attraction to a one type of sex before we self-label
Dating use to be simple. Two people get to know each other, go on a few dates, and then one day they decide to be boyfriend and girlfriend. However, this doesn't seem to be the case anymore. The term “Dating” is getting used less every day. Dating is a thing of the past because it takes a longer process for two people to determine if they are ready to commit, the term “talking” has replaced the word dating, and because people don't stay fully committed to one person anymore.
Bd 3. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2004, August 24). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Retrieved June 9, 2015, from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/PLEEP/pdfs/2005 Kurzban & Weeden EHB.pdf 4.