Given the different roles of our ancestral relatives, males and females could be seen to require very different things and this may be based on parental investment. Parental investment refers to the relative time and effort ‘spent’ on offspring in order to ensure their survival and success, and it can be largely agreed that female investment is heavier than that of the male.
Evolutionary theories lack empirical support; as were proposed after the event, we do not know they are true and so all explanations are inferences only.
Complex behaviours are not coded onto the genes in the way suggested by evolutionists. The Genome Project has shown that traits are a consequence of many interlinked gene, which may be inconsistent with evolutionary accounts of human reproductive behaviour.
Female parental investment is heavier, or rather more costly, due to lower reproductive output, or ANISOGAMY. Since females have only one reproductive opportunity per month, fertilisation and by a suitable mate is perhaps more important. Since she carried the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing, she needed someone to protect her and provide her with the necessary resources with which to both survive and ensure the survival and safety of her offspring. Males, in comparison, can potentially father numerous with considerably less investment and therefore must compete to display his capability & willingness to remain loyal, investing only in her.
“Trophy wives”, “gold diggers” and “sugar daddies” support the validity of the gender differences in mate choice identified by evolutionary theories
Since males are motivated to maximise their reproductive success also, they need to first display their willingness and ability to provide what the ‘choosy’ female needs, from which they may be selected as ‘suitable’ – this is known as INTRA-SEXUAL selection, whereby males must compete amongst themselves to be ‘selected’ by the female i.e. the female has evolved to become the choosier of the sexes, since she has more to lose. However, the male, in attempting to maximise his reproductive success must also safeguard his investment (time, effort, resources, etc) by selecting a female who can give him what he needs – beautiful and healthy children who will survive to reproduce themselves.
However, reproduction is not the sole motivator for relationships because some couples may not want to have children and in some other relationships (gay and lesbian relationships) it is physically impossible to have offspring naturally, also couples that have children from previous relationships may not want to have any more children, therefore the theories can not be applied in this situation.
INTER-SEXUAL selection may also be used to explain human mate choice and gender specific preferences, whereby each sex has evolved ‘success’ criteria for the opposite sex, based on what they need from one another. From here, both males and females accept or reject a potential mate, i.e. since females have evolved to become choosier, males might be motivated to display such characteristics, whilst females must also indicate their ‘viability’ as a potential mate to ensure her own reproductive success.
Such selection in both sexes leads to definite ‘preferences’ for a mate – males use indicators of viability and fertility and so look for ‘signals’ of this, including youthfulness and health. Females, in contrast motivated by their need for provision search for indicators of this, looking for status and resources, together with a willingness to invest. This is, again thought to be based on sex differences in parental investment.
Buss (1999) to some extent magnified the gender differences and failed to highlight the many similarities between genders, e.g. the fact that kindness and inelligence were rated as equally important by both genders. The links to a criticism levelled at many evolutionary psychologists, which is that they are highly selective in their use of research evidence, which brings its validity into question.
Since it seems that both males and females have definite preferences in mind, and given that when advertising themselves in ‘lonely hearts’ males and females tend to emphasise what it is we think the opposite sex wants, it is worth noting that certain signals are given out by both males and females in their everyday lives. For example, waist to hip ratio (valued by men) can be emphasised by women using belts, shapewear, etc. Upper body strength in males can be shown by tighter fitting clothes, shoulder pads, etc
However, a lot of signals can be dishonest and therefore indicate a good body, youthfulness and trying to make yourself seem more attractive, examples of these dishonest signals is plastic surgery, you can cover up wrinkles and ageing by having plastic surgery this can trick your potential partner to think you are more attractive and younger than you actually are. Makeup can cover imperfections and attract males.
The origins of human reproductive strategies is thought to be the EEA – environment of evolutionary adaptation. During this time, males who mated with young (& therefore more fertile) females would have enjoyed greater reproductive success. Similarly, females who selected high status males who were capable and willing to invest their resources would have, in turn, become more reproductively successful. Therefore modern day reproductive behaviours operate by accepting or rejecting potential mates on their perceived ability to fulfil our evolutionary needs.
According to postmodernism there are no universal explanations, which questions the validity of the genetic basis of behaviour. Furthermore, behaviour is era – dependent and context – bound, as changes in gender role evidence. This contradicts evolutionary explanations as these predict that behaviour is relatively consistent across time and contexts.
Sexual selection has also been observed to have had certain consequences for human reproductive behaviours. For example, sexual dimorphism refers to differences in the physical size of makes and females. It is proposed that the moderately bigger male may have evolved, again through intra-sexual selection, since bigger males might have been favoured by females, perhaps as they would indicate better provision and protection.
Furthermore facial preferences are thought to have evolved through the evolutionary pressures to maximise reproductive success. For example, for both sexes, symmetrical faces are preferred – this may be because they indicate ‘good genes’ in line with the good genes hypothesis, which states that ‘averageness’ would be more attractive, due to the apparent lack of genetic mutation – a trait we wish to pass on to our offspring.
Langlois et al. (1987) suggested that the preference for attractive faces is more likely to be an evolved response than a learned behaviour. Penton – Voak et al (1999) suggested that women’s preferences for attractive faces are not static, but change according to their position in the menstrual cycle. Found evidence that women are attracted to more masculine looking men during the most fertile time of their menstrual cycle and showed a preference for more feminine looking faces during less fertile times.
Sex differences with regard to facial features can also be observed. Men are shown to prefer childlike features, such as big eyes, small nose and full lips, whilst women are documented to prefer a strong jaw and cheekbones. In relation to sexual selection, it is proposed that such preferences evolved through inter-sexual selection, since males need to ensure reproductive success by selecting a fertile female (indicated by youthfulness of her looks), whilst females require a strong and good looking male (emphasised by his features which indicate high levels of testosterone – whilst this could suppress the immune system, it indicates good genes, since they survive nonetheless).
This may indicate that a less masculine looking man may make a better long – term partner (being seen as kinder and more cooperative), but that women benefit from being unfaithful in order to produce the stringet, healthiest children as a result of a quick fling with a more masculine – looking man.
EVALUATE THE WHOLE THEORY IN TERMS OF BOTH REDUCTIONISM AND SEXISM (think feminism).
Evolutionary theories are reductionist as they focus on one factor only, the gene, when other emotional , social, cognitive, behavioural, and developmental factors are highly relevant to human reproductive behaviour. They are oversimplified accounts at best, which is illustrated by the fact the relationships are not just about reproduction. Evolutionary theories cannot account for women who do not want children or for homosexual relationships. Emotions such as love are ignored. Feminists have challenged evolutionary theories such as sexist as they give scientific legitimacy to the double standard in sexual promiscuity and support an oppressed female role and so perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination.
Add anything else you can think of – e.g.
