Another perspective on human sexual behaviour comes from Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) sexual strategist theory (Baumeister, 2001). According to their theory men and women have different sexual strategies and they differ depending on whether the condition is short-term mating, i.e. affairs, or long-term mating, i.e. marriages or long-term relationships.
Men benefit from short-term mating by increasing the number of produced offspring. But, there are the costs of short-term mating, such as higher risk of contraction a sexually transmitted decease or lesser chance to attract women who seek a long-term mate because of his reputation as a womanizer and the risk of being attacked by a jealous husband whose wife he seduced and copulated with.
Women who pursue a short-term strategy meet similar costs as men, with a difference that a social reputation as promiscuous has more severe damaging effect on women than men. The reason is paternal uncertainty. Men who seek long-term mates would not favour promiscuous women. The main benefit of short-tern mating for women is that the extraction of resources in exchange for short-term sexual contact.
Men would pursue long-term rather than short-term mating strategy when is a possibility to attain women of high mate value, to avoid the cost of pursuing a short-term mate and to heighten the genetic quality of children, i.e. it is better to have many children with one person, than one child with different women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993 in Baumeister , 2001). The highest cost of long-term mating for men is the lesser chance to inseminate another woman. Benefits of long-term mating for women are obvious, a long-term mate can provide protection and resources for the woman and her offspring. The only cost of long term mating for women seems to be the loss immediate resources extracted from short-term mating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993 in Baumeister, 2001).
According to evolutionary theorists, human mating preferences are the result of evolutionary forces (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). Men prefer women who are physically attractive because attractiveness is a major “sign” of fertility. Attractive women are perhaps healthier and therefore more fertile (Symons, 1987, in DeLamater &Hyde, 1998).
Another cue to fertility is youth, meaning that men prefer younger women because their reproductive cycle is longer in length than of older women. Women also prefer physically attractive men, where attractiveness indicates, health and fertility, but it is less value than the ability to provide resources.
According to social constructionists’ stance, our preferences “are the results of socialisation”, learning from our culture the meaning of mate selection (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). The essentialists’ view emphasizes the universal preferences, but whilst preferences might be universal, the criterion of attractiveness is not universal (Fausto-Sterling, 1986, in DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). In some societies men find voluptuous women sexually attractive, while in other societies men find attractive women who are slim. Zebrowitz (1997) argues that the light skin colour is a sign of fertility, therefore men prefer women with a lighter skin complex. The results obtain cross-culturally indicated that women’s skin changes to darker tones during the periods of infertility, such as while menstruating, during pregnancy and contraceptive intakes (Squire, 2000). It is most likely that a lighter skin colour preference is not a universal classification of attractiveness, but a result of global happenings such as colonialism and slavery, where light skin signified high social status, while dark skin indicated slavery.
Michel (1966) used principal o social learning theories to explain gender roles and gender differences in behaviour ( Baumeister, 2001). Our behaviour is formed by appraisal for gender roles consistent behaviour and by ignorance and punishment for gender role inconsistent behaviour, which consequently lessen in frequency (Baumeister, 2001). Also, children imitate behaviour of adults, for example, boys learn heterosexual behaviour which emphasises masculinity in male-dominant societies is rewarded, while girls learn that promiscuous behaviour is punish by labelling of sexually free women as “sluts” (Segal in Squire, 2000). The changes over time on behavioural patterns of society are accounted to other sources, such as media. People imitate behavioural patterns of their role-models and what was a desirable behaviour at some moment in the past is no more at the present.
Daly & Wilson’s (1988) theory of male violence and homicide states that according to the notion of “kin selection” a co-operative and caring behaviour is exhibited towards those who are genetically related. The theory gives and explanation why is it more likely that husband would murder their wives, than their biological children. But, the theory does not explain why the reported violence “in the US and Britain” against women frequently starts when the woman is pregnant with a man’s child (Squire, 2000).
Essentialists argue that sexuality is determined by biology and the support for those claims come from genetic studies. The essentialists view support the idea that men and women develop a permanent sexual orientation prenatally or at an early stage of live (e.g Bailey & Pillard in Walsh, 1997). Leway (1991) in his autopsy study of brains of nineteen gay men, sixteen heterosexual men and sex women examined cell groups (nuclei) in hypothalamus-known as important in differentiating typical male from typical female sexual behaviour. Usually, two of the nuclei are larger in men than women. He found that one of the nuclei (INAH-3) are the same for both gender, INAH-3 was not larger in gay men than in heterosexual women. These finding were heavily criticised. Firstly, in some gay men and heterosexual women the INAH-3 was as large as in most heterosexual men, therefore the size of this brain region cannot be a sole cause of sexual orientation, perhaps may not be the cause at all (Walsh, 1997). Secondly, all gay participants died of aids, therefore their brain differences might be due to the disease. Also, in some of heterosexual men in the study, who also died of aids, INAH-3 was not smaller than in other heterosexuals (Walsh, 1997).
Two genetic studies, Bailey & Pillard (1991) and Bailey et al., (1993), one with male and one with female participants showed the innateness of homosexuality. The studies were conducted with monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins, and homosexual men and women with brothers and sister who were adopted (genetically unrelated). Similarity of sexual orientation was correlated with the genetic similarity. Among MZ twins of gay men- 53% were gay, among DZ twins of gay men- 23% were gay and among adopted brothers – 11% were gay. Among MZ twins of lesbians – 48% were lesbian, among DZ twins – 16% were lesbian and among adopted sisters – 6% were lesbian. For both studies (both sexes) the heritability of sexual orientation is about 50%, which indicates that the results cannot be counted for as significant (Walsh, 1997).
All the biological theories are based on the supposition that heterosexual and homosexual are underlying true forms of sexuality (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). Another assumption is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two separate and unambiguous categories. These theories rest on supposition that homosexuality and heterosexuality do not change over time, they are constant.
Social constructionist stance points out that sexuality is not universal and static phenomena but created by culture, by categorizing some behaviours and relationship as “sexual” and by drawing the meaning from these categorization and definitions (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). The understanding and categorization of the worlds is historically and culturally define. The particular forms of knowledge are specific to particular cultures and particular periods (Burr, 1995).
According to Foucault (1978) “sexuality is not an essence”, but cultural construct (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998, p 14). The meaning of sex is constructed and derived from language and discourse. The way we understand sexuality today and the sex practices taken up differ from those of the past.
According to Gagnon (1990) “each institution in society has an ‘instructional system’ about sexuality” (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998).
Our innate drives “drive” our sexuality (essentialists view) do not “command” with whom (or with what object), when and where we take on our sexual behaviour. Lost of our behaviour can be easily explain using cultural explanations. Genetically we are not so different as we were 2000 years ago, but our ways of behaving and thinking differ from the past. Sexual behaviour is not universal, but doffer across cultures. Blackwood (1993) pointed at the results based on a review of the anthropological literature that homosexuality tends to vary largely from one society to another (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). The value systems and social structures of the different societies mirror the homosexual behavioural patterns.
As mentioned earlier, biological theories supposed that sexual orientation is constant over time. That is to say, that sexual orientation either heterosexual or homosexual is “fixed” for life. In some societies sexual behaviour is not fixed, one can go between sexual orientation back and forth. In another societies sexual orientation is fixed as demonstrating in a common saying “once homosexual, always a homosexual”. Herdt (1984) showed that the Sambian culture in New Guinea do not apply the concept of sexuality as a fixed trade (Baumeister, 2001). Sexual orientation varies according to men’s age. Sambian males cannot achieve manhood without devouring semen from older men, therefore after the age of seven they live with older men and attain sexual contact with them, while not having any sexual contact with females. After they father children they become exclusively heterosexual.
Mead (1935) studied the behavioural patterns in New Guinea ethnic group- they Arapesh and the Mundugumor, and discovered different gender roles in different cultures (Rogers & Rogers, 2001). The Arapesh both men and women behaved more in a feminine manor while the Mundugumors both genders displayed more masculine behaviour. The Mundugumors lived in the harsher climate; therefore they culturally built up the behaviours which are the result of environmental predisposition, i.e. local adaptation. Each society has different “things” to adapt to.
Whilst not trying to present essentialist’s stance and their theories invalid and unsound, social constructionists argue that gender cannot be differentiated only through biology but should be defined by “interaction between people by language and by discourse of a culture” (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998, p 16). Biologically we are constrained (humans cannot fly), but nevertheless our brains have evolved and out thinking allows us freedom away from our biological constrain. Why we behaved and how we behave, it all starts from biological nationalism, from modern literature such as “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” by Gray (1990) and similar self-help “educational” literature and blinds the issues of power and oppression of one sex by another (Potts, 2002).
Culture does influence our reproduction, as Sperling & Beyene (1997) pointed out that “there is no universal biological pattern for the female reproductive cycle” (Segal in Squire, 2001, p 40). In the Western societies women’s adulatory cycle is approximately thirty-five years, while in underdeveloped societies the reproductive cycle is four years, showing the difference of thirty-one years. This refuted the essentialist’s views that “biology is destiny”. Reproduction and sexuality are not the same entity, ninety-nine per cent of the time our sexual activities are not of a reproductive nature.
References
Baumeister, R.F. (2001) Social Psychology and Human Sexuality. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Construction. London and New York: Rutledge.
DeLamater, J.D. & Hyde, J.S. (1998). Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism in the Study of Human Sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, No 1, pp 10-18.
Potts, A. (2002). The Science/Fiction of Sex. London & N. Y.: Routledge.
Roger, W.S. & Roger, R.S. (2001) The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Squire, C. (2000) Culture in Psychology. London: Sage.
Walsh, M.R. (1997) Women, Men and Gender. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
