Sexual+Strategies+Theory

=Sexual Strategies Theory: Psychology and Behavior of Human Sexuality = By Pedro Pinto

==  ==

Introduction
=== Over the past century, scientist and scholars have tried to pin point the mechanisms that trigger sexual activity among people. From Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to modern theorists like Donald Symons, R.A Fisher, and Robert Trivers to name a few. Each of them had their notable success in applying sexual behavior theories to the scientific community. However, it wasn’t until David Buss’s Sexual Strategies Theory that described how this behavior might work. Within this paper, I will label concepts and theories that explain the psychological and behavioral aspects for this theory. Alongside, I will summarize evolutionary concepts that help bring an overall understanding to the different theories coinciding within this theory. Excerpts will be added in each section to identify the methods in which we as individuals communicated among one another when referring to sexual behavior. ===

= History = Theories for human sexuality have come and gone. Charles Darwin was the first to discover that certain characteristics gave an organism advantages among competitors and enhance a chance at survival (Darwin, 1871). These characteristics ranged, but in humans can be attributed to physical shape, education, attractiveness, social status and financial well-being. Those with the stronger attributes would have a greater chance of mating. This theory was named //Sexual Selection.// Two concepts to take from this theory are //intrasexual// competition and mate preferences. //Sexual selection// was reinforced by another concept that helped pinpoint the mechanism that attributes to sexual activity called, the //Runaway Selection.// Runaway selection implies that certain genetic variations in one type of sex can attract members of the other sex due to those genetic variations (Fisher, 130/1958). As reproduction occurs over generations, those sexes with the unique genetic variations continuingly attract one another, leading to a run-off cycle. Lastly, //Trivers’s theory of parental investment// explains the concept that sexes who invest more in their offspring should be more selective of their choice of mates (Trivers, 1972). Parental investment is defined as the time and energy devoted to aid the survival and reproduction of an offspring at the expense of //intrasexual// competition. A high-investing sex engages in an //intersexual// component of sexual selection, instead of a //intrasexual//. A high-investing sex can select a mate that can aid in the survival and reproduction of their own species. Genetic variations, environmental status, and social context can determine this sexual selection. = Psychology and Behavior =  The brief history of sexual evolution over the past century has given an idea of how it is sexual reproduction works in a biological or natural sense. This next section attempts to describe human sexual process in relation to psychology and behavior. //The Evolution of Human Sexuality// by Donald Symons introduced the first look into the psychology behind sexual behavior (Symons, 1979). Summarized in to different sub-concepts, Symons argued that humans behaved and reacted differently to short and long-term sexual relations. Both sexes desire such interaction and have different psychologies on the matter. Furthermore, he argued that our psychological mechanisms are likely to be particular, each linked to a specific adaptive problem, corresponding to different sorts of problems humans faced (Symons, 1979). Examples for his theory include anthropological evidence that link ancestral men securing the existence of the human species by having multiple partners, the desire for men to have multiple short-term sexual encounters, and women focusing on certain traits of a man that signal security and reproduction (Symons, 1979). In short, Symons was describing the adaptive process human beings have and still overcome in order to understanding our sexual behavior. In relation to sexual communication, our adaptive processes are seen in examples today how differently early generations have acted in regards to sexual communication. Earlier generations where more male-dominated and women relied more heavily on men for survival. As the Progressive era came in the early 1900s, which gave women equal rights in culture and the work place. Women became more independent and required less of men, changing the traits in which a woman would look for in a man. Adaptive and sexual strategies processes where carried out as a result. = Sexual Strategies Theory =  Sexual Strategies Theory describes an evolutionary theory of human sexuality. According to this theory, desire lies at the foundation of sexuality and human mating (Buss, 1998). The theory centers on identifying desires and all the consequences that can led from a desired sexual actions. Concepts associated with this theory come from interpersonal communication such as: attraction tactics, derogation of competitor tactics, conflict between the sexes, mate-expulsion tactics, causes of conjugal dissolution, mate-retention tactics, and harmony between sexes (Buss, 1998). These desires are the motivational processes that lead members of our species to short-term and long-term relations.  Sexual strategies theorist argue that humans have a complex repertoire of mating strategies, both short and long term, each activated differently depended on context (Buss, 1998). Humans have evolved a complex repertoire of strategies such as marriage and dating. Different adaptive process must take place when pursuing long term or short term sexual strategies (Buss, 1998). A short-term sexual strategy can be maintained by sexual motivation and the ease of access one has to multiple partners. Physical attractiveness and financial well-beings are determining factors in this strategy. Long-term sexual strategies occur after assessing reproductive qualities such as security, social and financial status, education and ambition. In regards to short-term mating, men devote a larger proportion of their total mating effort than women do (Buss, 1998). Anthropological records indicate that men would have sex with multiple women in order to increase reproduction of our species through mating (Symons, 1979). Simply, men have a biological tendency to have short-term mating experience with a variety of female partners. Contemporary examples include, but are not limited to: dating, prostitution, one-night stands, etc. However, not all men benefit from short-term sexual access, a certain criteria needs to be met in order for men to have sexual access with multiple partners. Men who desire for a variety of partners require a degree of sexual accessibility to partners, must have physical cues to attract a women, and a strategy for keeping minimum time and energy expended in achieving this criteria (Buss, 1998). Males that do not adapt to these methods are said to have failed or be out-reproduced by other males in short-term mating. In contrast, males who have held sexual strategies for long-term mating are said to out-reproduce those males who have not adapted as well. Men look for cues in women that identify reproductive value in a women, probability of paternity and identifying women with good parental skills (Buss, 1998). Contemporary examples are seen today in marriages. Partners engage in a period in which they identify cues and traits of their partners that deemed them appropriate for a long-term relation for themselves and their offspring.  Short-term and long-term mating in regards to women also varies. Although women do not benefit as much a men do in short-term dating, they have engages in adaptive sexual strategies in order to address these inconveniences. Women who engage in short-term mating are available to immediate resources for themselves and their children, mate insurance in case her regular mate should become injured or die, and genetic benefits from mating with superior men (Buss, 1998). Cues that men look for in short-term mating are physical attractiveness or fertility and ease of sexual access. In contrast, women who pursue a long-term strategy use different adaptive sexual strategies. Women universally look to be in long-term mating relationship with a man who has good financial prospects, cues that lead to resources such as ambition and hard-working, education, and social status (Buss, 1998). In addition women tend to shun men who are looking for short-term mating relation. Lastly, different sexual contexts trigger which strategies are to be used among men and women (Buss, 1998). Those who look for short-term mating will seek a partner who is also seeking a short-term relation and vice versa. = Conclusion = The evolutionary history of sexual reproduction within the human species is not a straight road. Many theories and idea lie behind what interacting humans engage in when seeking sexual gratification or reproduction. Buss’s Sexual Strategies Theory offers an overall explanatory measure on the idea of sexual reproduction. The foundation of his theory lies in the desire for humans to interact in short-term and long-term relations, along with the strategies that lie behind each concept. Our desire to mate has led to the continual existence of the human species and understanding the communicational strategies that members of our species engage in is a critical point in the scientific community. References <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Buss, David M. (1998). //Sexual Strategies Theory: Historical Orginas and Current Status. The// Journal of Sex Research//.// Vol. 35. pp.19-31. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Darwin, Charles. (1871). //The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.// London: Murray. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Fisher, R.A. (1930/1958). //The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.// New York: Dover <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Symons, David. (1979). //The Evolution of Human Sexuality.// New York: Oxford University Press. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Trivers, Robert. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), //Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971// (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine