Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230563619
CITATIONS READS
2 2,375
1 author:
Michael Kauth
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
75 PUBLICATIONS 850 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Kauth on 27 May 2014.
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
ductive success, and women sometimes seek out short-term sexual part-
ners. Sefeck, Brumbach, Vasquez, and Miller make the important point
that sexual decision-making is context-dependent: that is, the ecological
context influences the particular mating strategy and what particular
characteristics are valued in a mate. Mating patterns can be shown to
vary with the harshness of the natural environment and availability of
material and nutritional resources. The influence of context–natural, so-
cial, behavioral, economic, and political context–on mate preferences
and mating patterns is often ignored by critics who portray evolutionary
explanations as rigid and deterministic.
Sefcek and colleagues also describe how humans, like all sexual or-
ganisms, have developed sexual signals to advertise their quality (e.g.,
“good genes” or good health) and value as a mate (e.g., fertility, willing-
ness to invest). Human fitness signals include physical features, as well
as social status, fashion, networks of friends, and material wealth. Thus,
distinctive physical features–large female breasts, large male penises,
body hair–can be thought of as sexual ornaments that have no adaptive
value in themselves but function to signal fertility, good health, “good
genes,” or sexiness. High cost physical traits are seen as more reliable
indicators of good health or “good genes.” An evolved preference for
particular traits is simply experienced as attraction.
Expanding on Sefcek and colleagues, evolutionary psychologist Da-
vid Schmitt describes how personality traits and sociosexual behaviors
compare across sexual orientations among self-identified gay/lesbian,
bisexual, and heterosexual men and women in 48 cultures, finding some
remarkable consistency. Cross-cultural comparisons provide a prime
opportunity for testing hypotheses about sex-specific versus target-spe-
cific mating psychologies, and Schmitt’s work illustrates one way of
approaching cross-cultural studies. He finds that sex differences in
sociosexual behavior are robust and culturally universal, supporting pa-
rental investment theory and sexual strategies theory. Sociosexual be-
haviors varied by and appeared adaptively responsive to sex ratio biases
and sociopolitical factors, such as women’s equality, sex role ideolo-
gies, and degree of patriarchy in the culture. From this large dataset,
Schmitt concludes that men are consistent in their sexual attitudes re-
gardless of sexual orientation or where they live. However, among men,
sexual behaviors differed by sexual orientation, probably due to the fact
that gay men have sex with men who may share similar attitudes about
sexuality. Among women, however, bisexuals differed significantly
from both heterosexual women and lesbians in sexual attitudes and be-
haviors. Although further validation studies are needed with different
Introduction 9
Proximate Causes
In brief, Pinker argues that such fears are unfounded and that the ab-
sence of a biological nature is no guarantee of the cherished values im-
plicit in these worries. I also suspect that the perceived threat of
evolutionary explanations and their passionate denials may stem in part
from the implied loss of status–that humans are not privileged, not spe-
cial. The desire by individuals, groups, nations, and the species as a
whole to view themselves as unique, entitled, powerful, and even supe-
rior may be a universal human trait. Whether or not objections to a bio-
logical human nature are due in part to hubris, what is special about
humans is not denied by biology or evolution.
REVEALING ASSUMPTIONS
are effeminate queens, while straight men are masculine and do not care
about their personal appearance; that straight women only want com-
mitted monogamous relationships, but straight men want one night
stands; that straight men never have sexual fantasies about men; that
children are not sexual; and that anal intercourse is only something that
gay men do.
Suggestive evidence of a writer’s implicit, unexamined assumptions
about sexuality is indicated when definitions are omitted or when hy-
potheses re-state social prejudices. In other cases, opinions are restated
as supportive evidence. Suggestive evidence of a writer’s implicit as-
sumptions about sexuality is indicated when the study methodology is
biased against finding disconfirming evidence, or when alternative ex-
planations are not discussed or given short shrift and quickly dismissed.
Implicit assumptions are also likely when writers ignore contradictions
in conceptual models and cite data from disparate theoretical models,
treating the data as equivalent (Kauth, 2005). I do not intend to be criti-
cal of examining social beliefs or ideas, which is an important part of so-
cial psychological research. Rather, I am referring to uncritically
incorporating social prejudices into scientific research. The goal is not
to make science assumption-free. The goal is to make the scientific pro-
cess assumption-transparent.
What Assumptions?
Explicating Assumptions
1. How are sex and gender defined? How is each structured (i.e., bi-
nary, bimodal, continuous)?
2. How is sexual orientation defined and structured (i.e., binary, bi-
modal, multidimensional)?
3. What is the presumed “nature” of sexual orientation (i.e., a natural
kind, social identity, some combination)?
4. What is the presumed role of biology and environment (i.e., di-
rect, indirect, some combination of an interaction) on the develop-
ment and stability of sexual orientation?
CONCLUSIONS
FURTHER READINGS
Darwin, C. (1859/1958). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. New
York: New American Library.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human Universals. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York:
Penguin Books.
Stein, E. (1999). The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual
Orientation. New York: Oxford University.
Taylor, T. (1996). The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture.
New York: Bantam.
REFERENCES
Badcock, C. (2000). Evolutionary psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and
transsexualism. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.
20 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992, Eds.). The adapted mind: Evolution-
ary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex
drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 347-
374.
Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its de-
velopment in men and women. Bloomington: Alfred C. Kinsey Institute of Sex Re-
search.
Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orienta-
tion. Psychological Review, 103, 320-335.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Buss, D. M. (1994/2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New
York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M. (2005). Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C.
(1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533-
548.
Byne, W., & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: The biological theories re-
appraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228-239.
Chivers, M. L. (2005). A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specific-
ity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20(4), 377-390.
Coleman, E. (1987). Assessment of sexual orientation. In E. Coleman (Ed.), Psycho-
therapy with homosexual men and women: Integrated identity approaches for clini-
cal practice (pp. 9-24). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Coleman, E., Gooren, L., & Ross, M. (1989). Theories of gender transpositions: A cri-
tique and suggestions for further research. Journal of Sex Research, 26(4), 525-538.
Collins, F. S. (2002). Human genetics. In J. F. Kilmer, C. C. Hook, & D. B. Uustal
(Eds.), Cutting-edge of bioethics, (pp. 3-17). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Barkow, J. H. (1992). Introduction: Evolutionary psychol-
ogy and conceptual integration. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.),
The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp.
3-15). New York: The Oxford University Press.
Fisher, H. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human
Nature, 9(1), 23-52.
Foucault, M. (1978/1990). The history of sexuality. Volume I: An introduction. Trans-
lated by R. Hurley. New York: Vintage.
Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gould, S. J. (1997, June 12). Darwinian fundamentalism. The New York Review of
Books, 44(10).
Gould, S. J. (1999). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York:
Ballantine.
Haldane, J. B. S. (1927). A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part
V. Selection and mutation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society,
23, 838-844.
Introduction 21
ogy and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136). New York: The Oxford University
Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1975/2000). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Wright, R. (1999, Dec 13). The accidental creationist. The New Yorker, 56-65.
doi:10.1300/J056v18n02_01