Desire and DNA: Is Promiscuity Innate?

Mike Friedman mikedf at amnh.org
Thu Aug 7 22:13:50 MDT 2003


washingtonpost.com

Desire and DNA: Is Promiscuity Innate?
New Study Sharpens Debate on Men, Sex and Gender Roles

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 1, 2003; Page A01

A fierce debate about whether jealousy, lust and sexual attraction are
hardwired in the brain or are the products of culture and upbringing has
recently been ignited by the growing influence of a school of psychology
that sees the hidden hand of evolution in everyday life.

Fresh sparks flew last month when a study of more than 16,000 people from
every inhabited continent found that men everywhere -- whether single,
married or gay -- want more sexual partners than women do.

"This study provides the largest and most comprehensive test yet conducted
on whether the sexes differ in the desire for sexual variety," wrote lead
researcher David P. Schmitt, an evolutionary psychologist at Bradley
University in Peoria, Ill. "The results are strong and conclusive -- the
sexes differ, and these differences appear to be universal."

The idea that male promiscuity is hardwired -- and therefore "normal" --
drew swift and furious criticism. Scholars who assert the primacy of
culture in shaping human behavior charged Schmitt with choosing his facts,
making his conclusions less about science than "wishful thinking."

The debate won't be settled soon, if ever. For the real arguments are about
social mores, gender roles and sexual politics. The real question isn't
about evolution, but society's view of appropriate behavior for men and women.

Ohio State University psychologist Terri Fisher said she knows the new
study will be misused. Each year, when she teaches her college students
about the research into sexual variety, the young men smile and nod and the
young women look appalled.

"I bet a lot of males might leave class and talk to their girlfriends and
say, 'You know what I learned in class? It's natural I don't want to commit
to you and that I feel attracted to other women -- it's because I am a
man,' " Fisher said.

The basic idea of evolutionary psychology is that human behavior -- like
human physical features -- is the product of evolution. Unlike with bones
and tissue, however, there is no fossil record of behavior, so
psychologists draw inferences from current behavior as to why people
developed certain ways of acting.

There is little controversy that evolution played some role in sculpting
behavior. Neuroscientists have studied emotions such as fear and found that
many species freeze when panicked, meaning that this is probably an evolved
behavior. But when evolutionary psychologists use the same argument about
complex behaviors such as sexual attraction, the debate becomes heated.

For if men and women naturally have different desires for sexual variety,
this easily becomes a justification of male promiscuity. Sociologists and
social psychologists assert that differences in sexual proclivity arise
because of a double standard in male-dominated societies, where female
sexuality is tightly controlled: Thus, a man with multiple partners is a
"stud" while a woman with multiple partners is a "slut."

Using genetics to bolster such beliefs, these critics say, gives gender
inequality the imprimatur of biology.

"Arguments about evolved dispositions have the implication of defending the
status quo," said Alice Eagly, a professor of psychology at Northwestern
University. "They have implications for power and status."

Schmitt's study, which was published in the July issue of the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, involved 16,288 volunteers from 50
countries in the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia, as well as Australia.
Asked how many partners they desired over the next month, men on average
said 1.87, while women said 0.78. Men said that over the next 10 years they
wanted 5.95 partners, while women said they wanted 2.17.

More than a quarter of heterosexual men wanted more than one partner in the
next month, as did 29.1 percent of gay men and 30.1 percent of bisexual
men, the study said. Just 4.4 percent of heterosexual women, 5.5 percent of
lesbians and 15.6 percent of bisexual women sought more than one partner.

Men were also more willing to enter into sexual relationships with partners
they had known for short periods of time, said Schmitt in an interview.

"It is the first systematic, massive, scientific study of these sex
differences," said David M. Buss, an evolutionary psychologist at the
University of Texas in Austin who wrote "The Evolution of Desire." Calling
the Schmitt paper definitive, Buss said, "The evidence he presents is
irrefutable."

Schmitt thinks the roots of the differences his study found lie in ancient
hunter-gatherer societies. Men who sought sexual variety had a greater
chance of passing on their genes -- and their promiscuous proclivities.
Women who kept their mates improved the chances of raising children and
were more likely to pass on their genes -- and their monogamous proclivities.

Many evolutionary psychologists say these divergent sexual strategies also
explain two corollary findings of modern studies. One says men seem more
disturbed by sexual infidelity and women seem more disturbed by emotional
infidelity. The other says heterosexual men seek women who are young and
beautiful because these are viewed as signs of fertility, while
heterosexual women seek men who are rich because that helps in raising
children.

Schmitt and Buss said that the findings help account for the fact that men
are more interested in pornography, more likely to flirt with strangers and
more likely to stray as spouses.

But social psychologists and even some evolutionary psychologists aren't
convinced. They say Schmitt's study is impressive, but his findings are far
from universal. And they challenge every one of Schmitt's and Buss's
assumptions and conclusions.

Because of society's double standard, Fisher said, women are hesitant to
report their true sexual desires. In one study, she asked men and women to
report whether they masturbated, watched soft-core pornography or hard-core
pornography. Each "yes" got a point. She found, on average, that men scored
2.32 and women 0.89.

But she also found that women's scores changed depending on how confident
they were of remaining anonymous. In the study, both men and women had been
told to hand their questionnaires to a researcher. But when women were told
to deposit their answers in a locked box supervised by a researcher, their
average score jumped to 1.53. And when the women took the test alone in a
locked room and then deposited their answers in a locked box -- ensuring
privacy and anonymity -- their score shot up further, to 2.04. The men's
answers did not change significantly, indicating they were less concerned
about their opinions being discovered.

In Schmitt's international study, students answering the survey sat
together in classrooms, filled out the questionnaires and deposited them in
a locked box. Some were asked to mail in their responses.

Fisher, who works at OSU's Mansfield campus, also found that when anonymity
was guaranteed, women reported having sex for the first time at a younger
age. Men guaranteed anonymity raised the age when they first had sex.

"No parent in any culture ever tells a daughter, 'By all means, go have
sex,' " said Pamela Regan, an evolutionary psychologist at California State
University in Los Angeles who disagrees with Schmitt and Buss. By contrast,
she said, "many expect their sons to 'be men,' which implies sexual
experience."

Eagly and Regan argue that men's and women's sexual choices and desires
grow more similar in societies with greater gender equality -- a contention
supported by Schmitt's own data.

Regan added that other evolutionary theories are just as plausible as the
male promiscuity argument: Men in hunter-gatherer societies who stuck with
a single mate and helped raise children might have been more genetically
successful -- because passing on genes means not just having children but
ensuring they survive long enough to reproduce in turn.

Other research has contradicted the finding that heterosexual men mainly
seek young, beautiful women, while heterosexual women are most drawn to
rich men. Last month, Stephen T. Emlen, an evolutionary biologist at
Cornell University, reported in a study that people basically want partners
with qualities they attribute to themselves. Contrary to stereotypes about
wealthy Mr. Rights and beautiful Ms. Wonderfuls, he said, attractive people
tend to value attractiveness, wealthy people value mates with money, and
ambitious types and family-oriented souls tend to gravitate to others like
themselves.

The desire for similar mates, Emlen found, was five to six times more
powerful than the desire for beautiful or wealthy partners. Emlen's study
was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

And David DeSteno, a psychologist at Northeastern University in Boston,
took aim at the other corollary of the evolutionary psychologists' theory:
that men fear sexual infidelity while women fear emotional infidelity.
Under test conditions designed to elicit gut responses, both men and women
reported that sexual infidelity would bother them more, said DeSteno, whose
work was published last year in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology.

If there's one thing almost everyone agrees on, it is that genes do not
decide what people ultimately do.

Indeed, the interests of individuals often conflict with the interests of
their genes -- and the strongest evidence for this is that in most
industrialized societies, birth rates are falling. People are choosing not
to have children, or to adopt, or to enter into gay relationships -- all
antithetical to the idea of passing on genes.

"I have heard people say, 'I can't help it, I am a man -- I have to spill
my seed,' " said Regan. "That's using science to justify your bad behavior.




More information about the Marxism mailing list