Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:04:51.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Men’s Sexual Preferences

from Part I - Precopulatory Adaptations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Daniel J. Miller  and
Ryan C. Anderson
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

Evolutionary sexual psychology posits that sexual preferences evolved in response to recurring adaptive problems faced by men and women in regard to reproduction and mating. Accordingly, asymmetries in the mating-related problems faced by the sexes should result in sex-differentiated preferences. Some asymmetries which could be expected to result in sex-differentiated preferences include: 1) the length of time during which one is able to produce offspring (much longer for men as compared to women, which is posited to result in men showing a preference for partners who display cues to fertility and reproductive viability); 2) minimum investment needed to produce offspring (much greater for women as compared to men, which is posited to result in men showing a greater preference for short-term mating relative to women); and 3) certainty of maternity/paternity of offspring (much greater for women as compared to men, which is posited to result in men showing preferences which mitigate partner infidelity and sperm competition). Consistent with the predictions of evolutionary sexual psychology, many of the physical characteristics which men find to be attractive in women are associated with fecundity (e.g., a low waist-to-hip ratio, youthfulness). Men do appear to display a greater interest in engaging in short-term mating relative to women. Men self-report more permissive attitudes toward casual sex, desire a greater number of sexual partners across various time periods, and report being more motivated by casual sex when dating or using dating apps. Large representative surveys frequently find a sizable sex difference in the number of sexual partners reported over the lifespan, although the degree to which this may reflect factors like differences in the way that men and women respond to such questions (e.g., estimating versus counting) is debated. Field experiments indicate that men are more inclined to accept offers of casual sex from opposite-sex strangers, and men appear to be more likely to pay for sex. The content of sexual fantasies and pornography also offer insights into the nature of men’s sexual preferences. Men’s sexual fantasies more frequently involve elements of sexual variety and nonmonogamy (e.g., casual sex with multiple partners). Men also appear to consume pornography more frequently than women, which may reflect pornography providing vicarious access to excellent short-term mating opportunities in the form of a myriad of virtual partners who are youthful, attractive, and display unusually high levels of sexual accessibility. The contents of pornography, and themes common to men’s sexual fantasies, also demonstrate a preoccupation with partner infidelity.

Keywords

human matingsexual preferencesmate preferencessexual strategiessex differencesevolutionary psychology
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 3 - 23
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45–101.Google Scholar
Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(5), 395–424.Google Scholar
Bateman, P. W., & Bennett, N. C. (2006). The biology of human sexuality: Evolution, ecology and physiology. Verbum et Ecclesia, 27(1), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binter, J., Leongómez, J. D., Moyano, N., Valentová, J., Jouza, L., & Klapilová, K. (2012). Sex differences in the incidence of sexual fantasies focused on evolutionary relevant objects. Anthropologie, 50(1), 83–94.Google Scholar
Björkelund, C., Lissner, L., Andersson, S., Lapidus, L., & Bengtsson, C. (1996). Reproductive history in relation to relative weight and fat distribution. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 20(3), 213–219. PMID: 8653141.Google Scholar
Braun, M. F., & Bryan, A. (2006). Female waist-to-hip and male waist-to-shoulder ratios as determinants of romantic partner desirability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(5), 805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosius, H. B., WeaverIII, J. B., & Staab, J. F. (1993). Exploring the social and sexual “reality” of contemporary pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 30(2), 161–170.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Sexual strategies theory. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 1–5). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110.Google Scholar
Carael, M., Slaymaker, E., Lyerla, R., & Sarkar, S. (2006). Clients of sex workers in different regions of the world: Hard to count. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 82(Suppl. 3), iii26–iii33.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. S., Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Brown, C. C. (2017). The porn gap: Differences in men’s and women’s pornography patterns in couple relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 16(2), 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, A., Mosher, W.D., Copen, C., & Sionean, C. (2011). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 36, 1–36.Google Scholar
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
Clifton, S., Fuller, E., & Philo, D. (n.d.). National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3): Reference tables. Retrieved from www.natsal.ac.uk/natsal-survey/natsal-3Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dagnino, B., Navajas, J., & Sigman, M. (2012). Eye fixations indicate men’s preference for female breasts or buttocks. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(4), 929–937.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
DeKay, W. T., & Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual differences, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(6), 184–189.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Duncan, M., & Dixson, A. F. (2015). The role of breast size and areolar pigmentation in perceptions of women’s sexual attractiveness, reproductive health, sexual maturity, maternal nurturing abilities, and age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(6), 1685–1695.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2011). Eye-tracking of men’s preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(1), 43–50.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Vasey, P. L., Sagata, K., Sibanda, N., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2011). Men’s preferences for women’s breast morphology in New Zealand, Samoa, and Papua New Guinea. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1271–1279.Google Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27(4), 527–555.Google Scholar
Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., Schmitt, D. P., & LaMunyon, C. W. (2005). Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: A preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4), 749–763.Google Scholar
Grulich, A. E., de Visser, R. O., Badcock, P. B., Smith, A. M., Heywood, W., Richters, J., … & Simpson, J. M. (2014). Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters: The Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Sexual Health, 11(5), 439–450.Google Scholar
Guéguen, N. (2011). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity to sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 915–919.Google Scholar
Hald, G. M. (2006). Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(5), 577–585.Google Scholar
Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 453–458.Google Scholar
Hald, G. M., & Štulhofer, A. (2016). What types of pornography do people find arousing and do they cluster? Assessing types and categories of pornography in a large-scale online sample. Journal of Sex Research, 53(7), 849–859.Google Scholar
Havlíček, J., Třebický, V., Valentova, J. V., Kleisner, K., Akoko, R. M., Fialová, J., … & Roberts, S. C. (2017). Men’s preferences for women’s breast size and shape in four cultures. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(2), 217–226.Google Scholar
Henss, R. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2010). An event‐level analysis of the sexual characteristics and composition among adults ages 18 to 59: Results from a national probability sample in the United States. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 346–361.Google Scholar
Hicks, T. V., & Leitenberg, H. (2001). Sexual fantasies about one’s partner versus someone else: Gender differences in incidence and frequency. Journal of Sex Research, 38(1), 43–50.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., Aung, T., Harrison, M. A., LaFayette, J. N., & Gallup, G. G. (2021). Experimental evidence for sex differences in sexual variety preferences: Support for the Coolidge effect in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 495–509.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398.Google Scholar
Jasieńska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P. T., Lipson, S. F., & Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271(1545), 1213–1217.Google Scholar
Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder: Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men’s partner-directed violence. Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 327–334.Google Scholar
Lehmiller, J. J. (2020). Fantasies about consensual nonmonogamy among persons in monogamous romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(8), 2799–2812.Google Scholar
Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 275–284.Google Scholar
Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences and evolutionary theory. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 8–31.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F., & Wetsman, A. (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(3), 481–489.Google Scholar
McKee, A., Albury, K., & Lumby, C. (2008). The porn report. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Mercer, C. H., Tanton, C., Prah, P., Erens, B., Sonnenberg, P., Clifton, S., … & Johnson, A. M. (2013). Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: Findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The Lancet, 382(9907), 1781–1794.Google Scholar
Miller, D. J., & McBain, K. A. (2021). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. American Journal of Sexuality Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648Google Scholar
Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., Li, W. W., & Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). Pornography, desire for porn-like sex, masturbation, and men’s sexual and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 93–113.Google Scholar
Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T., & McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 15(4), 502–529.Google Scholar
Millward, J. (2013, February 14). Deep inside: A study of 10,000 porn stars and their careers [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://jonmillward.com/blog/studies/deep-inside-a-study-of-10000-porn-starsGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, K. R., Mercer, C. H., Prah, P., Clifton, S., Tanton, C., Wellings, K., & Copas, A. (2019). Why do men report more opposite-sex sexual partners than women? Analysis of the gender discrepancy in a British national probability survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, L. F. (2004). Goals for cross‐sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 121–147.Google Scholar
O’Connor, K. A., Holman, D. J., & Wood, J. W. (1998). Declining fecundity and ovarian ageing in natural fertility populations. Maturitas, 30(2), 127–136.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Doyle, J. F., Macedo, A. F., & Arantes, J. (2018). Arching the back (lumbar curvature) as a female sexual proceptivity signal: An eye-tracking study. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(2), 158–165.Google Scholar
Pedersen, W., Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A. D., & Yang, Y. (2002). Evolved sex differences in the number of partners desired? The long and the short of it. Psychological Science, 13, 157–161.Google Scholar
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38.Google Scholar
Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2014). Human sperm competition: A comparative evolutionary analysis. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1(3), 410–422.Google Scholar
Prah, P., Hickson, F., Bonell, C., McDaid, L. M., Johnson, A. M., Wayal, S., … & Mercer, C. H. (2016). Men who have sex with men in Great Britain: Comparing methods and estimates from probability and convenience sample surveys. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 92(6), 455–463.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, K. R., Millar, D., & Trenchuk, J. (2019). Relationships and infidelity in pornography: An analysis of pornography streaming websites. Sexuality & Culture, 23(2), 571–584.Google Scholar
Regnerus, M., Gordon, D., & Price, J. (2016). Documenting pornography use in America: A comparative analysis of methodological approaches. Journal of Sex Research, 53(7), 873–881.Google Scholar
Richters, J., Altman, D., Badcock, P. B., Smith, A. M., De Visser, R. O., Grulich, A. E., ... & Simpson, J. M. (2014). Sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience: The Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Sexual Health, 11, 451–460.Google Scholar
Rissel, C., Badcock, P. B., Smith, A. M., Richters, J., de Visser, R. O., Grulich, A. E., & Simpson, J. M. (2014). Heterosexual experience and recent heterosexual encounters among Australian adults: The Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Sexual Health, 11(5), 416–426.Google Scholar
Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in response to visual sexual stimuli: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 206–218.Google Scholar
Salmon, C., & Fisher, M. L. (2018). Putting the “sex” into “sexuality”: Understanding online pornography using an evolutionary framework. EvoS: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 9, 1–15.Google Scholar
Salmon, C., Fisher, M. L., & Burch, R. L. (2019). Evolutionary approaches: Integrating pornography preferences, short-term mating, and infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 148, 45–49.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85–104.Google Scholar
Schützwohl, A., Fuchs, A., McKibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). How willing are you to accept sexual requests from slightly unattractive to exceptionally attractive imagined requestors? Human Nature, 20(3), 282–293.Google Scholar
Sevi, B., Aral, T., & Eskenazi, T. (2018). Exploring the hook-up app: Low sexual disgust and high sociosexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 17–20.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., LaMunyon, C. W., Quintus, B. J., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2004). Sex differences in sexual psychology produce sex-similar preferences for a short-term mate. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(4), 405–412.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Bleske-Rechek, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123–138.Google Scholar
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of waist-to-hip ratio and female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307.Google Scholar
Singh, D. (1994). Ideal female body shape: Role of body weight and waist‐to‐hip ratio. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16(3), 283–288.Google Scholar
Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 483–507.Google Scholar
Stein, J. B., Mongeau, P., Posteher, K., & Veluscek, A. (2019). Netflix and chill? Exploring and refining differing motivations in friends with benefits relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 28(3), 317–327.Google Scholar
Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 67–78.Google Scholar
Sun, C., Bridges, A., Wosnitzer, R., Scharrer, E., & Liberman, R. (2008). A comparison of male and female directors in popular pornography: What happens when women are at the helm? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 312–325.Google Scholar
Tappé, M., Bensman, L., Hayashi, K., & Hatfield, E. (2013). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers: A new research prototype. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 7(2), 323–344.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(2), 105–120.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–207). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Valentova, J. V., Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., & Varella, M. A. C. (2017). Influence of sexual orientation, population, homogamy, and imprinting-like effect on preferences and choices for female buttock size, breast size and shape, and WHR. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 313–319.Google Scholar
Vannier, S. A., Currie, A. B., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2014). Schoolgirls and soccer moms: A content analysis of free “Teen” and “MILF” online pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 253–264.Google Scholar
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: Examining the gender discrepancy in self‐reported lifetime number of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 375–386.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. D. (1997). Gender differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(1), 27–31.Google Scholar
Zurbriggen, E. L., & Yost, M. R. (2004). Power, desire, and pleasure in sexual fantasies. Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 288–300.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×