Short-term mating strategies in comparison to men and women is a tough topic to put together. ate researchers and scientists are trying to understand the mating process, to find some solutions to the issues of life e.g. why people spend years looking for mates and then struggle to fulfil their relationships. (D.M.
Buss, 2003). Definition There are different definitions of short-term mating strategies and why both men and women get into it. Looking from an evolution perspective, men choose short-term mating strategies to spread as much offspring as they possibly, they would have left behind more descendants than the men that choose long-term mating strategies (Olivia & Hyde, 1993). For women who choose short-term mating strategies, by selectively mating with men who where able to produce stronger offspring they are able to maximize their chances of producing robust offspring (Olivia & Hyde, 1993).TheoriesSexual Strategies Theory- sexual strategies theory (D.M. Buss and D.
P. Schmitt, 1993). There are diverse types of designs and theories that explains that men indulge more in short term strategies than women do, e.g.
adaptive design, sexual strategies theory (D.M. Buss and D.P. Schmitt, 1993).
Whereas there are also theories and research design that states that women can indulge in short term mating strategies as much as men do, e.g. conventional theories such as studies in nature, feminist theories (Hyde, 1996).Men and women can both practice short-term mating strategies, digging into the different mating strategies theories, social learning theories, good gene versus bad gene hypothesis, attractiveness and society perspective, we would be able to see that women can indulge in short-term mating strategies as much as men do.
According to many evolutionary psychologists such as; Bowlby (1969), Hazan & Shaver (1994) and many others, have state that humans are designed to create and develop a secure attachment style during childhood by evolution. This developed attachment will manifest itself during adulthood when male and female will yearn for a long-term marital union and high investment. Evolutionary perspective states that pair-bonding amongst humans is based on endorphin-oriented psychological system that motivates sexual satisfaction, emotional trust and the need to increase survival of offspring.
Whereas those who choose to indulge in short-term mating from an evolutionary perspective are pathologically deviating from the norm in which case is long-term mating.Sexual strategies are a set of adaptations that gives directions and influences the way humans choose their mates and the effort the out into both mating and parenting. Both males and females are not consciously aware of these sexual strategies since they are theorized as genetically programmed, in which individuals are able to use their reproductive and somatic efforts to unlock certain mating strategies in adaptive ways. According to (Dominey, 1984) mating strategies sometimes involves many behavioral strategies, while Trivers (1972) termed this strategy as a mixed mating strategy, e.
g. males who were raised in a nuclear family setting would invest a lot in their offspring but will choose to invest less in mating opportunities with other females. Environments that reproductions take place are constantly changing, which creates pressure for males and females of most species to choose the best mating strategy. (Buss, 1999) researched a few adaptive problems that were likely to be faced by both male and female over the history of human evolution when engaging in different relationships. An adaptive problem that men had to face as short-term maters was their luck in gaining permission from many women who were willing to be their sexual partners. While for women gaining access to multiple willing sexual partners would not have been a problem for them, one reason for this is because there are many men who would be willing to engage in a short-term relationship, and them being carefree with multiple partners will would not be able to increase their fertility (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997). For the ancestors to be able to produce successfully they had to overcome this adaptive problem.
For every problem there must be a solution, in this case, Buss and Schmitt (1993) assume a few psychological adaptations have progressed and has given a pathway in which issues linked to human mating can be resolved. One of this solution is the continuous evolving human desires such as: sexual desires, different taste preferences and fears, this evolving desire has been able to promote survival and reproduction (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992).Furthermore, there are many different mating strategy theories when it comes to sex differences which many favor the idea that men leading to the point that they desire short-term mating than women. Social learning theory explains that both boys and girls learn how to behave in different ways especially sexually from the adults they look up to such as their parents (Mischel 1966; Bandura 1977). It has been know that children tend to learn from the same-sex (Geary, 1998).
Looking back to when most women were home-makers and men most men where bread-winners. For the girls looking up to their mothers on how to behave sexually and emotionally would have been taught to keep her husband satisfied and always threat him as the head due to the fact that he provides for the family. Whereas boys learn to respect their wives and work hard to provide for them. These theory can lead to the notion that before a lady gets married they have to look the men that are strong and able to provide for them and their children, this same notion goes for the young men (Wollstonecraft, 1891). Other theories that explains short-mating strategies in sex differences are social role theories. These theories explain the ‘sexual double standards’ of short-term mating, this states that society sees it very normal for men to indulge short-term mating while it is an abnormal for women to do so.
Women are punished and called all sort for names for being promiscuous while men are rewarded for their promiscuity (Oliver & Sedikides, 1992). Things change as generations pass by and societies are a little less harsh on women for indulging in short-term mating strategies taking into account that women also do fall in love and can also fall out of love (Sprecher, 1987). Two researchers, Gagnon and Simon (1973), agrees with the notion that men indulge more in short-term mating, due to the face that men take part in masturbation in emotional isolation while women spend adolescence building up intimate emotional connections amongst their pals. While this theory is most likely to be true, one must also take into account that when teenage girls masturbates, they also masturbate in isolations and that men also have the tendencies to build intimate emotional connection too with their pals while in their adolescence years (Vaneigem, 2012). A mating strategy theory in gender differences states that men have a greater chance of being more successful in reproduction by mating with many different women that women can achieve by mating with multiple men. Many evolutionary research frequently say, that men have high desires for sex than women do. Men are often portrayed the gender that requires a lot of female to maximize their reproductive success (Flanagan & Cara, 2012).
Evolutionary psychologist have come up with mechanisms for short-term mating that are obvious today. The mechanisms are: mate-guarding behaviors and sexual jealousy, these two mechanisms became a repeated adaptive issue with the persons that engage sexually with multiple partners (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Issues such as extramarital affairs, which are also evident in the past where polygamous mating were adopted (Buss, 1994). Daniel Bergner disagreed with the evolutionary perspective and he argues that monogamy is a cage in which women sexual drives are controlled and also that women sex drives are not different the male sexual drives.One approach that helps to understand the basis of sexual differences is the adaptationist perception of evolutionary psychology (Buss, 1995; Mealey, 2000). All types of psychological sex differences began between species that reproduced, each of this species withhold a psychological mating trait that allows them to be successful when producing offspring, according to evolution. Look at Parental investment theory, which is defined as parents who invest in their offspring increases the survival rate and successful reproduction of their offspring at the expense of investing in other offspring (Trivers, 1972).
Parental investment according to (Trivers, 1972) can be divided into two main classes: rearing investment which is the time invested in raising the child after conception and mating investment is the sexual act and the sex cells that are invested. An observation was made by Trivers, 1972, that there is a connection between gender differences and parental investment in short-term mating. He observed that heavy-investing sex (females) own self-possessed sexual desires which suggests that females are less drawn towards short-term mating than men known to be (low-level investors). According to evolution there are two reasons for this sex-differences in mating strategies that (Trivers, 1972) observed, which is that heavy-level investors have limited time to produce an offspring and it also takes a lot of energy to raise just one offspring, while low-level investors have more very few limitations when it comes to producing offspring. The only issue for the male investors is gaining access to willing female investors. The second reason is that female investors have to be able to choose wisely when choosing a mate, they have to think of the material consequences e.
g. if the females where to choose a poor male the consequences for that is the inability to raise a strong offspring that will survive. Using the example of a female Mormon cricket, she has the psychological ability and taste to be able to select the right male to mate with (Alcock, 1993). While for male investors, choosing the wrong mate would not have a huge negative impact on them because they can easily move on to the next willing female. This two observations leaves (Trivers 1972) to conclude with the notion that males are more likely to indulge in short-term mating than females. Furthermore, in the mid-1960s adaptations were seen as benefits giving to organism without them being able to fully recognize the cost associated with it (Cronin, 1991). It is a must that individuals invest energy, time and effort, to achieve life challenges which is more likely to affect their inclusive fitness; these are to ability to survive till old age, to reproduce healthy offspring, and rearing them to the best of abilities.
Individuals making decision on short-term or long-term mating have to choose well not to put themselves at risk(decreasing their chances of producing healthy offspring), but also using the resources given to the differently. Therefore, that is why adaptations have what is known as ‘opportunity cost’, which is a loss of fitness benefit that could have been obtained by using alternative resources. This means that individuals must take time to evaluate benefits provided to them in relation to determine the end cost of how particular adaptations might evolve (Parker & Smith, 1991). With the help of evolutionary analysis; its role is to layout the cost-benefit (trade-offs), that influences individuals to make a decision on where their time, energy and efforts are invested, to increase their inclusive fitness. Trade-offs can be seen in parental investment versus mating strategies (Trivers, 1972). Though parental investment can increase survival and production of an offspring, it can also have its own cost in relation to “opportunity cost”, which could be a lost chance to invest in other offspring.
If mating gain is larger for a particular gender, that specific gender will invest more time and effort into mating than rearing an offspring (Low, 1978). For any females species gaining more mates would not be beneficial to them in producing fitness gains (Barteman, 1948), it is suggest that female species should invest more time and energy in parenting than male specie as it is a better option for benefits. While most males to spend their time and energy in obtaining and attracting mates. Trade-off also agrees with the notion that men can indulge in short-term mating than women.
David Buss believed that men would be extremely heart broken by sexual unfaithfulness while women would be more disheartened by emotional betrayal due to distinct evolutionary burdens. Individuals who score high in psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism could wonder somewhere else while still in a relationship. According to (Schmitt & Buss, 2001) the term mate poaching is the effort to seduce those who are in a long-term relationship.A stereotype of “what is beautiful is good” (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972) may imply that beautiful women tend to achieve what they want and may in fact achieve it (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Udry & Eckland, 1964 etc). According to evolutionary psychology, men have the tendency to pursue and invest more energy on youthful and attractive mates as they are presumed to indicate fertility (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) than women do. As men’s ability to reproduce do not decline with age like women, women are not expected to spend time admiring men’s youthful appearance.
Women are assumed to be more attracted to status and ambition due to the fact that these characteristics are linked to men’s access to resources, offspring produced from this women are more likely to survive, than women who do not look for ambition and status in me. This notion has been tested and it has been found that women do look for status in their mates while men focus on youthful beauty (Shackelford, Schmitt & Buss, 2005). This notion is more likely to change as the world evolves e.g. women gaining access to resources their preference may begin to change based on what they want from their mates.
Nowadays women have more money and the table are turning. A research was carried out by Carin & Jamie (2012) on women’s physical attractiveness and short-term mating strategies, and they found that women who found themselves physically attractive and found physically attractive tend to engage more in short-term mating. “Woman’s mating strategy and her attractiveness self-assessment mechanism are intimately related…” (Carin et al, 2012). Looking at nature studies and evolutionary biology that is against the notion that men engage in short-term strategies than women. Nature studies show that hens can mate with as many cocks as they want because they have the power to choose the sperm that they are fertilized by. After studying hens mating strategies, Tim Birkhead found that female hens have the ability to squirt out the sperm of the cock they don’t like. According to evolutionary biologist Birkhead, promiscuity in women can lead to many evolutionary advantages; one is fertility insurance, that is they can be insure that they are able to be fertilized by their mates.
Recent studies states that female reproductive regions could play an important role in post-copulatory selection amongst sperm for reproduction (Birkhead & Moller, 1993) Another one is the “good gene” theory, where females select mate that they see to have genetic advantages and together are able to produce good quality offspring e.g. male warbler with big song repertoire, tend to have long lived lives that’s why female warblers will prefer them to male with a small song repertoire. Which will ensure the female warbler the best offspring. ConclusionA1 We can see that females also do have the ability to engage in short-term mating. But there is an extent in which they can pursue it: the limited time they have to reproduce, and offspring is compromised by their age. Also, social norms do not see it fit for a woman to indulge in promiscuity, and if they would be frowned upon, while men are praise for their short-term mating strategies.
A1Develop this…. Increase it