What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evolution Of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating
If we all want love, why is there so much conflict in our most cherished relationships? To answer this question, says noted psychologist David Buss, we must look into our evolutionary past. Based on the most massive study of human mating ever undertaken, encompassing more than 10,000 people of all ages from thirty-seven cultures worldwide, The Evolution of Desire is the first book to present a unified theory of human mating behavior.
Now in an updated edition with two new chapters by the author, The Evolution of Desire presents the latest research in the field, including starting new discoveries about the evolutionary advantages of infidelity, orgasm, and physical attractiveness.
Now in an updated edition with two new chapters by the author, The Evolution of Desire presents the latest research in the field, including starting new discoveries about the evolutionary advantages of infidelity, orgasm, and physical attractiveness.
354 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
About the author
David M. Buss
49 books631 followersDavid M. Buss is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, known for his evolutionary psychology research on human sex differences in mate selection.
Buss earned his PhD in psychology at University of California, Berkeley in 1981. Before becoming a professor at the University of Texas, he was assistant professor for four years at Harvard University, and he was a professor at the University of Michigan for eleven years.
The primary topics of his research include mating strategies, conflict between the sexes, social status, social reputation, prestige, the emotion of jealousy, homicide, anti-homicide defenses, and—most recently—stalking. All of these are approached from an evolutionary perspective. Buss is the author of more than 200 scientific articles and has won many awards, including an APA Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology in 1988 and an APA G. Stanley Hall Lectureship in 1990.
Buss is the author of a number of publications and books, including The Evolution of Desire, The Dangerous Passion, and The Murderer Next Door, which introduces a new theory of homicide from an evolutionary perspective. He is also the author of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, whose fourth edition was released in 2011. In 2005, Buss edited a reference volume, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. His latest book is Why Women Have Sex, which he coauthored with Cindy Meston.
Buss is involved with extensive cross-cultural research collaborations and lectures within the U.S.
Education:
Ph.D.University of California,Berkeley:1981
B.A.University of Texas, Austin: 1976
Academic Employment History:
1996-Present Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin.
1991-1996 Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1985-1991 Associate Professor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1981-1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard University (promoted to Associate Professor, Harvard, 1985)
Buss earned his PhD in psychology at University of California, Berkeley in 1981. Before becoming a professor at the University of Texas, he was assistant professor for four years at Harvard University, and he was a professor at the University of Michigan for eleven years.
The primary topics of his research include mating strategies, conflict between the sexes, social status, social reputation, prestige, the emotion of jealousy, homicide, anti-homicide defenses, and—most recently—stalking. All of these are approached from an evolutionary perspective. Buss is the author of more than 200 scientific articles and has won many awards, including an APA Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology in 1988 and an APA G. Stanley Hall Lectureship in 1990.
Buss is the author of a number of publications and books, including The Evolution of Desire, The Dangerous Passion, and The Murderer Next Door, which introduces a new theory of homicide from an evolutionary perspective. He is also the author of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, whose fourth edition was released in 2011. In 2005, Buss edited a reference volume, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. His latest book is Why Women Have Sex, which he coauthored with Cindy Meston.
Buss is involved with extensive cross-cultural research collaborations and lectures within the U.S.
Education:
Ph.D.University of California,Berkeley:1981
B.A.University of Texas, Austin: 1976
Academic Employment History:
1996-Present Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin.
1991-1996 Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1985-1991 Associate Professor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1981-1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard University (promoted to Associate Professor, Harvard, 1985)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 281 reviews
July 28, 2012
Feminists hate this book, the politically correct call it chauvinistic - both indicators of a book a thinking person should read. And it is, a must-read by my standards.
Buss spells it out for all of us - we are biological sex machines; genes making us have pre-programmed us to prefer certain things in mates no matter people feel about these preferences.
I personally felt no vibe of bias in the book, Buss' arguments are straightforward, evolutionarily plausible and applicable to the vast majority of people in the world.
To those arguing that Buss' findings only relate to our evolutionary history, not the present - nonsense. Sexual preference is like the taste of sweetness, no amount of socialization and education will change the fact that men and women world-wide prefer some features over others regardless of how politically-correct they are.
Buss spells it out for all of us - we are biological sex machines; genes making us have pre-programmed us to prefer certain things in mates no matter people feel about these preferences.
I personally felt no vibe of bias in the book, Buss' arguments are straightforward, evolutionarily plausible and applicable to the vast majority of people in the world.
To those arguing that Buss' findings only relate to our evolutionary history, not the present - nonsense. Sexual preference is like the taste of sweetness, no amount of socialization and education will change the fact that men and women world-wide prefer some features over others regardless of how politically-correct they are.
June 24, 2018
Super interesting book. TL/DR: Men love hot women. Women love rich men. Not, but seriously.
My favorite part was the end where he talks about how understanding our wiring does not mean that we are slaves to it. He makes a super interesting observation too about the roots of patriarchy. I have been puzzling over this since I read Yuval Harari's Sapiens book where he makes a comment about how it wasn't strength, but cooperation and that stayed with me. Buss would say that Harari had it partly right. Because women preferred with status and female choice was the leading determinant of mating, men were incentivized to join forces both to gain more resources against other tribes of men, but also to steal women and to control or suppress choice. This also led to more male violence because younger men with fewer resources were incentivized to take more risks--i.e. fight battles on the off chance that they could win and get the booty and the ladies.
Lots of other interesting tidbits in here too, but on the whole kind of a bit drier than you would expect from a book about sex. I would highly recommend the evolution of beauty as a companion read to this one.
My favorite part was the end where he talks about how understanding our wiring does not mean that we are slaves to it. He makes a super interesting observation too about the roots of patriarchy. I have been puzzling over this since I read Yuval Harari's Sapiens book where he makes a comment about how it wasn't strength, but cooperation and that stayed with me. Buss would say that Harari had it partly right. Because women preferred with status and female choice was the leading determinant of mating, men were incentivized to join forces both to gain more resources against other tribes of men, but also to steal women and to control or suppress choice. This also led to more male violence because younger men with fewer resources were incentivized to take more risks--i.e. fight battles on the off chance that they could win and get the booty and the ladies.
Lots of other interesting tidbits in here too, but on the whole kind of a bit drier than you would expect from a book about sex. I would highly recommend the evolution of beauty as a companion read to this one.
June 17, 2012
The Evolution of Desire is indeed quite interesting. Data shows that in the sexual selection process, humans choose between temporary (casual) and long-term (co-parenting) and use many strategies to attract and keep a mate. For the most part, men want casual sex with a young, beautiful child- bearing female. Women want an older, dependable man with resources in committed relationships. Feminists hated this book, and I can certainly see why, but I can see how applying this type of science to most dating situations might help. Usually humans aren't aware of these processes. The author purports that if knowledge is power, then reading this and applying the concepts to ones' selection process could be seen as a sexual strategy within itself. I have to agree. The data isn't always nice. This isn't a fairy tale. But still... somehow, each and every one of us is an evolutionary success story. Recommend :)
February 23, 2012
I thought the conclusions Buss has drawn are presumptuous and a bit unfair against women. For instance, he argues that due to the large history of violence against women, women are born with risk-associative behaviors to repel rape in correlation with their ovulation periods. He also contests several theories regarding the functionality of the female orgasm (A husband selection device?). Although evolution has answered plenty of questions biologically, I find that some of the insights it has given to the realm of psychology have been ultimately vague and elusive. This particular study drew hard conclusions based on surveys from people in the late 80s. I'm basically skeptical of any argument that is reached non-deductively regarding subconscious evolutionary psychological mechanisms without some plausible answer to how cultural environmental factors wouldn't largely skew the results. Especially concerning his projected reasoning for homosexuality, his view of rape as a evolutionary sex strategy by males and his assertion that women are naturally driven to men of high generative status.
December 11, 2007
Kind of boring. Keeps repeating the same thing over and over a million different ways: men and women use different (and not so surprising) strategies to maximize their own resources (be it sex, social status, wealth, etc.). Sometimes draws too many conclusions from crappy college student surveys. Since I've participated in some of those studies before I know how much college student really care to be accurate...
March 2, 2017
This is an absolutely groundbreaking and mind-blowing book that will change the way you think about dating, love and sex for good.
Backed up by solid scientific research David Buss sheds light on why we act the way we do in love, sex and dating, why that behavior has evolved and what purpose it serves. Going beyond empty platitudes of chaste morality, he gives us the truth: what sexual strategies do we have available to us, why do we use them, and how have they evolved?
Plain and simple, to understand love, dating, sex and desire, we need to look at how our ancestors lived, and why that behavior evolved.
All of us have a wide set of sexual strategies available to us that we can activate at any time, depending on our personality, context, and the mating market around us. Some of these are loving and kind. Some of them are harsh, shallow and brutal. Whatever the case - we all have them because they worked successfully for many generations of our ancestors.
Becoming aware of all these sexual strategies and preferences is the first step to developing the love life you desire.
Although there's much variation between people, much more nuance to it than meets the eye, and there are multiple different strategies available to all of us, on average (for most people in history), it boils down to this:
Women look for a man who can (and will) attain and provide resources, and looks likely to provide them for a prolonged period of time exclusively to her as she becomes pregnant and raises children. Bonus points if he's kind, loving, compassionate, intelligent and an all around catch on top of that.
Men look for a healthy, fertile woman (which usually means young), that's loyal and faithful to him, so that he's sure his offspring is his and he's not being cuckolded. Great if she's nurturing, loving, intelligent and possesses a whole range of other traits.
Those two main desires lie at the core of most human mating. Everything else flows from that.
Most men would have as much casual sex as they could get away with to sire more offspring. But women tend to prefer long-term exclusive relationships to make sure her offspring are taken care of. There lies (once again - on average) the fundamental conflict between men and women.
Sexuality is complex, and there's much more than meets the eye. But we've all inherited a wide array of different sexual strategies from which we choose, based on our personality, our stage and situation in life, and the competition and mating market around us.
A fascinating, well-written book that gives you the overall overview of how human mating really works. The best (and most complete) evolutionary psychology book I've ever read (better than "The Red Queen" and "The Mating Mind"). I wish I read it a decade ago ago, and can highly recommend it to anyone that wants to understand our mysterious game of love better.
Backed up by solid scientific research David Buss sheds light on why we act the way we do in love, sex and dating, why that behavior has evolved and what purpose it serves. Going beyond empty platitudes of chaste morality, he gives us the truth: what sexual strategies do we have available to us, why do we use them, and how have they evolved?
Plain and simple, to understand love, dating, sex and desire, we need to look at how our ancestors lived, and why that behavior evolved.
All of us have a wide set of sexual strategies available to us that we can activate at any time, depending on our personality, context, and the mating market around us. Some of these are loving and kind. Some of them are harsh, shallow and brutal. Whatever the case - we all have them because they worked successfully for many generations of our ancestors.
Becoming aware of all these sexual strategies and preferences is the first step to developing the love life you desire.
Although there's much variation between people, much more nuance to it than meets the eye, and there are multiple different strategies available to all of us, on average (for most people in history), it boils down to this:
Women look for a man who can (and will) attain and provide resources, and looks likely to provide them for a prolonged period of time exclusively to her as she becomes pregnant and raises children. Bonus points if he's kind, loving, compassionate, intelligent and an all around catch on top of that.
Men look for a healthy, fertile woman (which usually means young), that's loyal and faithful to him, so that he's sure his offspring is his and he's not being cuckolded. Great if she's nurturing, loving, intelligent and possesses a whole range of other traits.
Those two main desires lie at the core of most human mating. Everything else flows from that.
Most men would have as much casual sex as they could get away with to sire more offspring. But women tend to prefer long-term exclusive relationships to make sure her offspring are taken care of. There lies (once again - on average) the fundamental conflict between men and women.
Sexuality is complex, and there's much more than meets the eye. But we've all inherited a wide array of different sexual strategies from which we choose, based on our personality, our stage and situation in life, and the competition and mating market around us.
A fascinating, well-written book that gives you the overall overview of how human mating really works. The best (and most complete) evolutionary psychology book I've ever read (better than "The Red Queen" and "The Mating Mind"). I wish I read it a decade ago ago, and can highly recommend it to anyone that wants to understand our mysterious game of love better.
October 26, 2009
I read this book a few years ago and just flipped through it again before lending it to a friend. It's an excellent primer in evolutionary psychology, but be warned--Buss's tone comes across as insanely chauvinistic. The most ignorant people will use a book like this to justify the worst gender stereotypes; more open-minded readers will understand that the studies Buss discusses reveal insights about the environment our evolutionary ancestors adapted to, tens of thousands of years ago, and are NOT (contrary to the misleading title) a how-to for 21st century dating and relationships.
September 13, 2012
Looking at the author's picture, pretty nice genetic package there. Sure I'd do him, provided he makes six figures and is five+ years older than me. Also, since neither of us would be interested in marriage, I'd require a hefty mistress fee via lots of expensive presents. /sarcasm
I'm not sure how much, if anything, I should take away from this book. Certainly interesting reading. The entire book can be summarized: Men and Women make use of sexual strategies and these strategies can be more typical of one or the other gender.
This book offers plenty to chew on but feels more like Freud than science.
I'm not sure how much, if anything, I should take away from this book. Certainly interesting reading. The entire book can be summarized: Men and Women make use of sexual strategies and these strategies can be more typical of one or the other gender.
This book offers plenty to chew on but feels more like Freud than science.
August 29, 2013
Dry and unengaging overview of the basic evolutionary psychology position on sex, love and romance. This is one of the landmark texts that helped to kickstart the current dominance of evopsych in general thinking about humanity.
If you're looking for a basic introduction to this kind of thinking, and are also willing to have your perceptions on love challenged and shaken a little bit, then it's an adequate book. But, as with all evolutionary psychology books, one should enter warily and remember that it is just a framework for understanding, which is not all-encompassing or all-explanatory. My own personal opinion is that it is unimaginative, politically reactionary, and ad-hoc misreading of certain criteria of human flourishing ; but that is just me.
If you're looking for a basic introduction to this kind of thinking, and are also willing to have your perceptions on love challenged and shaken a little bit, then it's an adequate book. But, as with all evolutionary psychology books, one should enter warily and remember that it is just a framework for understanding, which is not all-encompassing or all-explanatory. My own personal opinion is that it is unimaginative, politically reactionary, and ad-hoc misreading of certain criteria of human flourishing ; but that is just me.
September 16, 2018
The entire book is premised on the belief that people will be honest with themselves when answering questions about relationships. It is very depressing. Most of the book is persons making excuses for bad relationship choices based on a child's understanding of evolution.
November 19, 2021
This one was interesting. Evolutionary psychology is a controversial field so this book in particular will offend some women, alienate some men, and be dismissed by hopeless romantics. In a nutshell:
-Buss describes evolutionary psychology as the theoretical lens to understand the human mind
-Human psychological traits are evolved adaptions as a result of causal processes through evolution by natural selection
-Nature designed the rules of the ‘mating game’ primarily due to differences in our reproductive cells (finiteness of eggs vs replenishing sperm and it’s implications on fertility, personal needs, and life goals)
-Men in a crude evolutionary sense are viewed as success objects by women for resources and opportunity
-Women in similar evolutionary terms are viewed as sex objects by men for fertility purposes and social status
What women want:
Good genes/physical attractiveness
Socioeconomic status & resources
Prefer long-term relationships
What men want:
Good genes/physical attractiveness
Youthfulness (fertility purposes & social status)
More open to casual sex
Mutual attraction, confidence, courtship, romance, love, intimacy, sex life, kindness, communication, sincerity, compassion, trust, reliability, maturity, parenting ability, emotional stability, intelligence, financial growth/security, etc are then the active ingredients for building and sustaining a long-term relationship.
———
Using the above framework, we implement strategies based around our short and long-term goals—from casual sex to marriage.
For long-term relationships, our biology and ensuing psychology are an evolutionary adaption to prosper, survive and pass on genes. Even in the case of same-sex relationships, the goals are more or less the same: resources and attractiveness. Women seem to only find the top 20% of men attractive before settling whereas men find the top 50% of women attractive based on research. Men are more visual in terms of attraction, whereas women are more complicated due to their long-term security needs. On average, women tend to ‘marry up’ with men who are slightly older and leave men who lose their status/jobs (specifically if they don’t have the potential to reacquire resources and status). Women tend to separate sooner while their desirability is highest (20’s/30’s). The dynamics change as men and women get older as there is an inverse trajectory in status/value on average: men ascend (socioeconomic status and wealth starts to peak later in life) while women decline (due to decline in physical attractiveness and infertility). Now, there are exceptions with all of this as a woman’s social status and resourcefulness can ascend while a man declines. Also, studies show that independently successful women still seek mates who are as or more resourceful than them. Divorce rates are at or near a staggering 40-50% (North America) so all of these factors mentioned come into play as we age and can explain infidelity and the motivations to separate. Some lessons for long-term relationships, it’s to the benefit of men to be committed to a single person as it increases social status, increases resources, and coalition networks. Also, men should attend to personality variables of a mate instead of prioritizing physical attraction so much if a long-term successful relationship is desired. For women, it’s wise to prioritize resources that a mate offers as it’s a better long-strategy for their well-being and for the children. Also, to avoid emotionally immature and irresponsible partners as it can lead to relationship dissatisfaction, sabotage of resources, and poor parenting. Both men and women should avoid emotional unstable and highly disagreeable people.
For short-term casual dating and sex, exceptions are made by women for personality traits of men. An insensitive macho act by a man/‘the alpha’ is more successful for casual dating/sex than a long-term prospect. Men will date and have casual sex with women who aren’t as physically attractive or emotionally stable as the type of woman they would like to marry or get into a long-term relationship Also, men tend to lie more about their occupation and status when they seek casual sex. In general, casual dating has been more of a male strategy to lead women on and deceive them under the illusion that their interested in a long-term relationship for sex purposes, however, many women are starting to catch up to men with interest in casual sex and are using the same tactics, particularly as screeners to observe a man’s long-term potential.
Now with that said, the research studies seem a little crude, he tends to default into stereotypes when there are gaps of information, the casual dating/sex studies seems to have been focused on the college/young adult crowd, the rhetoric towards both genders can be somewhat demeaning, and you can find evidence for just about anything that will get you to the conclusion that you’re looking for so it’s all a bit reductive. I’m skeptical on some of the claims as he takes some very big leaps in judgement like all evolutionary psychologists, but the logic here is mostly good based on the extensive research that’s been done. Buss is a respected pioneer and a commonly cited person (over 75+ thousand times) so it’s more likely sobering information on what it really means to be a human than speculation. There are likely some errors and misleading information here due to the fact that he is a man so there is some prejudice and discrimination here with designing and interpreting his research. Lastly, most of it actually felt like common sense if you’ve been paying attention to intra/intergender relationship dynamics.
Bottom line… women seem to have a more rational, calculating, and selective/‘choosy’ strategy for mating including having a ‘back-up’ plan/mate—they desire long-term care and opportunities for themselves and their children, but their value is as high as how attractive they are to men. On the other hand, men have a more flexible reproductive timetable and desire sexual variety while prioritizing physical attraction and are more open to casual sex, but are under greater socioeconomic pressure otherwise they’re viewed as unattractive and disposable to mates. Ultimately, mutual attraction, love, and kindness prevails and determines a successful committed long-term relationship, but it’s a task in itself to remain committed as goals and needs change. I’s not uncommon for both genders to fantasize about other people and get poached by others despite being married. Research has shown that 50% of men cheat while 25% of women do; and more than 50% of both men and women attempt to lure married persons away from their partner with a success rate at an alarming 50%. Culture, social, and gender norms are changing so ‘mating dynamics’ are not stagnant and are expected to change but attractiveness (good genes,facial symmetry, V-taper and masculinity for men, youthfulness for women, good hygiene, etc) and resources seem to be the things that are most sought after by both genders and all orientations. Lastly, noting is preordained or fatalistic so understanding mating behaviour can be useful to create less friction between partners, others and our environment to meet out needs, but it’s important to not get too cynical and develop disdain towards the opposite sex and the mates we desire because we may have been conditioned and designed over the course of thousands/millions of years to behave and make choices the way that we do.
4/5
-Buss describes evolutionary psychology as the theoretical lens to understand the human mind
-Human psychological traits are evolved adaptions as a result of causal processes through evolution by natural selection
-Nature designed the rules of the ‘mating game’ primarily due to differences in our reproductive cells (finiteness of eggs vs replenishing sperm and it’s implications on fertility, personal needs, and life goals)
-Men in a crude evolutionary sense are viewed as success objects by women for resources and opportunity
-Women in similar evolutionary terms are viewed as sex objects by men for fertility purposes and social status
What women want:
Good genes/physical attractiveness
Socioeconomic status & resources
Prefer long-term relationships
What men want:
Good genes/physical attractiveness
Youthfulness (fertility purposes & social status)
More open to casual sex
Mutual attraction, confidence, courtship, romance, love, intimacy, sex life, kindness, communication, sincerity, compassion, trust, reliability, maturity, parenting ability, emotional stability, intelligence, financial growth/security, etc are then the active ingredients for building and sustaining a long-term relationship.
———
Using the above framework, we implement strategies based around our short and long-term goals—from casual sex to marriage.
For long-term relationships, our biology and ensuing psychology are an evolutionary adaption to prosper, survive and pass on genes. Even in the case of same-sex relationships, the goals are more or less the same: resources and attractiveness. Women seem to only find the top 20% of men attractive before settling whereas men find the top 50% of women attractive based on research. Men are more visual in terms of attraction, whereas women are more complicated due to their long-term security needs. On average, women tend to ‘marry up’ with men who are slightly older and leave men who lose their status/jobs (specifically if they don’t have the potential to reacquire resources and status). Women tend to separate sooner while their desirability is highest (20’s/30’s). The dynamics change as men and women get older as there is an inverse trajectory in status/value on average: men ascend (socioeconomic status and wealth starts to peak later in life) while women decline (due to decline in physical attractiveness and infertility). Now, there are exceptions with all of this as a woman’s social status and resourcefulness can ascend while a man declines. Also, studies show that independently successful women still seek mates who are as or more resourceful than them. Divorce rates are at or near a staggering 40-50% (North America) so all of these factors mentioned come into play as we age and can explain infidelity and the motivations to separate. Some lessons for long-term relationships, it’s to the benefit of men to be committed to a single person as it increases social status, increases resources, and coalition networks. Also, men should attend to personality variables of a mate instead of prioritizing physical attraction so much if a long-term successful relationship is desired. For women, it’s wise to prioritize resources that a mate offers as it’s a better long-strategy for their well-being and for the children. Also, to avoid emotionally immature and irresponsible partners as it can lead to relationship dissatisfaction, sabotage of resources, and poor parenting. Both men and women should avoid emotional unstable and highly disagreeable people.
For short-term casual dating and sex, exceptions are made by women for personality traits of men. An insensitive macho act by a man/‘the alpha’ is more successful for casual dating/sex than a long-term prospect. Men will date and have casual sex with women who aren’t as physically attractive or emotionally stable as the type of woman they would like to marry or get into a long-term relationship Also, men tend to lie more about their occupation and status when they seek casual sex. In general, casual dating has been more of a male strategy to lead women on and deceive them under the illusion that their interested in a long-term relationship for sex purposes, however, many women are starting to catch up to men with interest in casual sex and are using the same tactics, particularly as screeners to observe a man’s long-term potential.
Now with that said, the research studies seem a little crude, he tends to default into stereotypes when there are gaps of information, the casual dating/sex studies seems to have been focused on the college/young adult crowd, the rhetoric towards both genders can be somewhat demeaning, and you can find evidence for just about anything that will get you to the conclusion that you’re looking for so it’s all a bit reductive. I’m skeptical on some of the claims as he takes some very big leaps in judgement like all evolutionary psychologists, but the logic here is mostly good based on the extensive research that’s been done. Buss is a respected pioneer and a commonly cited person (over 75+ thousand times) so it’s more likely sobering information on what it really means to be a human than speculation. There are likely some errors and misleading information here due to the fact that he is a man so there is some prejudice and discrimination here with designing and interpreting his research. Lastly, most of it actually felt like common sense if you’ve been paying attention to intra/intergender relationship dynamics.
Bottom line… women seem to have a more rational, calculating, and selective/‘choosy’ strategy for mating including having a ‘back-up’ plan/mate—they desire long-term care and opportunities for themselves and their children, but their value is as high as how attractive they are to men. On the other hand, men have a more flexible reproductive timetable and desire sexual variety while prioritizing physical attraction and are more open to casual sex, but are under greater socioeconomic pressure otherwise they’re viewed as unattractive and disposable to mates. Ultimately, mutual attraction, love, and kindness prevails and determines a successful committed long-term relationship, but it’s a task in itself to remain committed as goals and needs change. I’s not uncommon for both genders to fantasize about other people and get poached by others despite being married. Research has shown that 50% of men cheat while 25% of women do; and more than 50% of both men and women attempt to lure married persons away from their partner with a success rate at an alarming 50%. Culture, social, and gender norms are changing so ‘mating dynamics’ are not stagnant and are expected to change but attractiveness (good genes,facial symmetry, V-taper and masculinity for men, youthfulness for women, good hygiene, etc) and resources seem to be the things that are most sought after by both genders and all orientations. Lastly, noting is preordained or fatalistic so understanding mating behaviour can be useful to create less friction between partners, others and our environment to meet out needs, but it’s important to not get too cynical and develop disdain towards the opposite sex and the mates we desire because we may have been conditioned and designed over the course of thousands/millions of years to behave and make choices the way that we do.
4/5
May 26, 2009
This book was amazing. Buss is a great writer, he is very eloquent and yet simple. People with no knowledge of the field could easily read and enjoy this book. He is clearly very passionate about his subject, the book is very indepth. He is aware of the vast implications of his research but remains positive and thoughtful about human behavior and our evoled psychological mechanisms. Knowledge is power, the truths revealed in this book may indeed be disturbing to some, enlightening to others, but I think it's best to arm yourself with knowledge.
November 30, 2013
This book was awful. I chose to read this to complete a book review for my anthro seminar course for human reproduction. The ideas he presented were so old school, sexist, and idiotic. There was no modern interpretations of human reproduction and no assessment on mating choices/practices that are actually happening in the real world. His data collection method was flawed, the survey itself was biased. To think ANYONE can benefit from rape, or that rape can actually be justified is disgusting. The research was poorly done.
July 27, 2018
A quick primer on sexual selection, by one the founders of evolutionary psychology. Buss covers evolved sex differences in human mating behavior (mate selection, attraction, retention, replacement, conflict). Within ev psych, and in comparison to say Geoffrey Miller and Bret Weinstein, Buss’s is the orthodox mainstream line. As such there aren’t too many surprises here, unless you surf the world on the oppressor-oppressed axis of intersectionality.
Some overarching themes:
- What is remarkable is not that many stereotypes reflect reality, but the degree to which these stereotypes are stable across cultures, and often across species (e.g. “Coolidge effect”). Take Jordan Peterson’s “lobster” metaphor and run it across a wide spectrum of behavior.
- “Hijacking” of evolved strategies and preferences by modernity is as true for sexual behaviors, as it is for human interaction in general. Plenty of ink is spilled on the latter in the context of social media.
- Many traits are adaptive and subconscious.
- Evolution drives sexual competition between sexes, and just as important, yet underemphasized, within sexes.
- Differences in long vs short term preferences and strategies, signaling, effect of sex ratios run at every level of analysis.
- Asymmetries all over the place (e.g. on average, men need to commit to get higher status women, women need to drop commitment to get higher status men)
Broad strokes:
Men. Very high variance in reproductive success, strong selection for risk taking. Low investment cost. Two strategies (“sow and run” vs commit). Access to women and faithfulness in partner is paramount.
Women. Low variance of reproductive success. Very high investment cost. Access to resources, safety and commitment is paramount.
Side note: Geoffrey Miller’s hypothesis is selection for intelligence as a proxy for getting everything else (OK, plausible), where art/humor/creativity/morality fall out as costly signals (eh… no). For starters morality is likely adaptive itself, promotion of cooperation. That said, if nothing else, given IQs correlation with health, direct sexual selection for IQ shouldn’t be surprising.
Casual sex. Fischer’s “Sexy son” hypothesis (women), “Coolidge effect” (men), hedge for mate switching (both). Female orgasm and sperm retention in extra-marital encounters, testicle size as a function of promiscuity and sperm completion in the species (large in humans compared to gorillas, but small compared to hyper-promiscuous chimps).
Irony of “sharing cultures” leading to more casual sex (reduces need for resources in a partner). Cheating: for women - get higher quality genetic material, for male - evolutionary lottery win (reproduction without commitment).
Mate stealing. 30% successful allegedly!? No wonder jealousy is highly adaptive. For men biggest trigger is unfaithfulness, for women time spent. Women’s “resource” is not sharable, while men’s resources are – perhaps men’s famous lack of emotional expressivity is in part an adaption to hide shared resources…
Conflict. Women as sexual deceivers, men as commitment deceivers. To oversimplify, men attempt to monopolize sexual reproduction access, women attempt to monopolize resources. Co-evolutionary escalation and bi-directional fine-tuning.
Beauty
Many universal beauty standards for women as signals of fertility and health. E.g. Youth (fertility), face symmetry and skin (reduced chance of mutational load). And yes, while thinness varies among cultures, the waist-hip ratio is a universal signal of healthy fat distribution (as proxy for health), and absence of pregnancy.
Conversely, masculine features in men is a universal signal for health. E.g. Jaw lines, V-shaped torsos, deep voice – product of testosterone production in adolescence. Too much testosterone can compromise immune system, so only healthy males can afford to sustain high level of testosterone. Also, high testosterone level links to higher sperm quality surely help.
Paternity uncertainty and concealed ovulation are massively influential in shaping both sexes’ behavior. Among mammals human females are unique with concealed ovulation (even to themselves!). Adaptation for male retention plus rape prevention? (Bret Weinstein’s bets mostly on the latter). Long life span after menopause also unique to humans, grandmother hypothesis (also, maaaaybe in orkas and elephants).
Assorted tidbits.
With age men’s “value” tends to go up (more resources and status compensate for loss of attractiveness and health), but women’s tends to go down (youth, health, fertility).
Men pay higher mortality price at every age group, especially in polygamous societies.
How monogamy reduces violence has been well studied. 80% percent of 850 surveyed cultures allow for polygamy.
In US, recent developments in college education impact women’s mating prospects. Sex-ratio on campus is tilting towards women, and, coupled with women’s preference for educated males, this reduces the pool of desirable men in and after college.
Submissiveness in an effort to preserve the relationship is more pronounced in males. Coalition formation more pronounced in males, evolutionary adaptive to fight off other men.
Sex differences increase in more gender-equal societies (Stoet and Geary 2018 etc)
A cute bit from Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying - erections at hangings are possibly adaptive? Last chance to spread the seed so to speak, just like dandelions.
Remarks on culture wars.
Finally, the book is for the most part descriptive, not normative. Almost every sentence could have been prefaced with “on average”. As such this represents a baseline of human sexual behavior over most of history, with plenty of variation around it. More recent developments (birth control pill, labor markets, last two decades of genomics and bio engineering, and 21st century hyper-hijacking of our psyche by social media and marketing) are altering this baseline dynamics sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. The evolution of norms and practices of human sexual behavior will undoubtedly continue to change going forward, but knowing what your current baseline is and why gender roles evolved to exist in way that they do should be a precondition for any sensible conversation.
Unfortunately, in the culture wars of today, you often hear surprise at lack of symmetry and quick resort to “blank slate” argument of human nature. Meanwhile, asymmetries are omnipresent in evolution, and among all areas of group differences it seems that differences between men and women should be the least controversial. Shockingly they are not. Too bad evolution is such a bitch.
Going out on a high note.
Men’s sexual tactics and preferences are shaped by female choice and vice-versa. Conflict and asymmetry aside, cooperation between sexes in humans dwarfs all other species. Male investment in offspring also dwarfs all other species (In Chimps, our closest relative, male commits nothing to kin – as species they haven’t solved the paternal uncertainty apparently :))
“Men are one long breeding experiment run by women” – Sarah Hrdy, evolutionary anthropologist.
Some overarching themes:
- What is remarkable is not that many stereotypes reflect reality, but the degree to which these stereotypes are stable across cultures, and often across species (e.g. “Coolidge effect”). Take Jordan Peterson’s “lobster” metaphor and run it across a wide spectrum of behavior.
- “Hijacking” of evolved strategies and preferences by modernity is as true for sexual behaviors, as it is for human interaction in general. Plenty of ink is spilled on the latter in the context of social media.
- Many traits are adaptive and subconscious.
- Evolution drives sexual competition between sexes, and just as important, yet underemphasized, within sexes.
- Differences in long vs short term preferences and strategies, signaling, effect of sex ratios run at every level of analysis.
- Asymmetries all over the place (e.g. on average, men need to commit to get higher status women, women need to drop commitment to get higher status men)
Broad strokes:
Men. Very high variance in reproductive success, strong selection for risk taking. Low investment cost. Two strategies (“sow and run” vs commit). Access to women and faithfulness in partner is paramount.
Women. Low variance of reproductive success. Very high investment cost. Access to resources, safety and commitment is paramount.
Side note: Geoffrey Miller’s hypothesis is selection for intelligence as a proxy for getting everything else (OK, plausible), where art/humor/creativity/morality fall out as costly signals (eh… no). For starters morality is likely adaptive itself, promotion of cooperation. That said, if nothing else, given IQs correlation with health, direct sexual selection for IQ shouldn’t be surprising.
Casual sex. Fischer’s “Sexy son” hypothesis (women), “Coolidge effect” (men), hedge for mate switching (both). Female orgasm and sperm retention in extra-marital encounters, testicle size as a function of promiscuity and sperm completion in the species (large in humans compared to gorillas, but small compared to hyper-promiscuous chimps).
Irony of “sharing cultures” leading to more casual sex (reduces need for resources in a partner). Cheating: for women - get higher quality genetic material, for male - evolutionary lottery win (reproduction without commitment).
Mate stealing. 30% successful allegedly!? No wonder jealousy is highly adaptive. For men biggest trigger is unfaithfulness, for women time spent. Women’s “resource” is not sharable, while men’s resources are – perhaps men’s famous lack of emotional expressivity is in part an adaption to hide shared resources…
Conflict. Women as sexual deceivers, men as commitment deceivers. To oversimplify, men attempt to monopolize sexual reproduction access, women attempt to monopolize resources. Co-evolutionary escalation and bi-directional fine-tuning.
Beauty
Many universal beauty standards for women as signals of fertility and health. E.g. Youth (fertility), face symmetry and skin (reduced chance of mutational load). And yes, while thinness varies among cultures, the waist-hip ratio is a universal signal of healthy fat distribution (as proxy for health), and absence of pregnancy.
Conversely, masculine features in men is a universal signal for health. E.g. Jaw lines, V-shaped torsos, deep voice – product of testosterone production in adolescence. Too much testosterone can compromise immune system, so only healthy males can afford to sustain high level of testosterone. Also, high testosterone level links to higher sperm quality surely help.
Paternity uncertainty and concealed ovulation are massively influential in shaping both sexes’ behavior. Among mammals human females are unique with concealed ovulation (even to themselves!). Adaptation for male retention plus rape prevention? (Bret Weinstein’s bets mostly on the latter). Long life span after menopause also unique to humans, grandmother hypothesis (also, maaaaybe in orkas and elephants).
Assorted tidbits.
With age men’s “value” tends to go up (more resources and status compensate for loss of attractiveness and health), but women’s tends to go down (youth, health, fertility).
Men pay higher mortality price at every age group, especially in polygamous societies.
How monogamy reduces violence has been well studied. 80% percent of 850 surveyed cultures allow for polygamy.
In US, recent developments in college education impact women’s mating prospects. Sex-ratio on campus is tilting towards women, and, coupled with women’s preference for educated males, this reduces the pool of desirable men in and after college.
Submissiveness in an effort to preserve the relationship is more pronounced in males. Coalition formation more pronounced in males, evolutionary adaptive to fight off other men.
Sex differences increase in more gender-equal societies (Stoet and Geary 2018 etc)
A cute bit from Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying - erections at hangings are possibly adaptive? Last chance to spread the seed so to speak, just like dandelions.
Remarks on culture wars.
Finally, the book is for the most part descriptive, not normative. Almost every sentence could have been prefaced with “on average”. As such this represents a baseline of human sexual behavior over most of history, with plenty of variation around it. More recent developments (birth control pill, labor markets, last two decades of genomics and bio engineering, and 21st century hyper-hijacking of our psyche by social media and marketing) are altering this baseline dynamics sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. The evolution of norms and practices of human sexual behavior will undoubtedly continue to change going forward, but knowing what your current baseline is and why gender roles evolved to exist in way that they do should be a precondition for any sensible conversation.
Unfortunately, in the culture wars of today, you often hear surprise at lack of symmetry and quick resort to “blank slate” argument of human nature. Meanwhile, asymmetries are omnipresent in evolution, and among all areas of group differences it seems that differences between men and women should be the least controversial. Shockingly they are not. Too bad evolution is such a bitch.
Going out on a high note.
Men’s sexual tactics and preferences are shaped by female choice and vice-versa. Conflict and asymmetry aside, cooperation between sexes in humans dwarfs all other species. Male investment in offspring also dwarfs all other species (In Chimps, our closest relative, male commits nothing to kin – as species they haven’t solved the paternal uncertainty apparently :))
“Men are one long breeding experiment run by women” – Sarah Hrdy, evolutionary anthropologist.
December 12, 2021
Existe un viejo dicho, dice "Veritas odium parit". Algo así como que la verdad engendra molestia. La izquierda ideológica lo que hace al momento es negar la realidad o ser -antinatural-; esto es, agarra argumentos como el del mito del "buen salvaje" (atribuido al idiota de Rosseau) o argumentos como que "hombres y mujeres somos iguales". Esto con el fin de eliminar diferencias intrínsecas, inherentes a la condición humana, o dejando de lado la vil naturaleza con un reductio ad absurdum a todo el estudio científico.
Leer psicología evolutiva es incómodo, pero lamentablemente es la realidad. Si quieres ser feminista, de verdad, debes de leer este tipo de lecturas. Son las únicas que definen y muestran tal y como es a los sexos. Desde que E.O. Wilson fue desestimado por la horda de progres de su época, es una rama en florecimiento pese al auge de una emocracia o cancel culture. La psicología evolutiva contempla el estudio del homo sapiens, considerando cómo la evolución ha moldeado nuestro cableado cerebral, por tanto, todo nuestro comportamiento. Los hombres ven porno, las mujeres casi no. Y un sin fín de diferencias que aburriría a cualquiera. Por tanto, es importante mencionar que así como principios cosmológicos en la Cosmología, o principios legales en Derecho, existe un principio que determina que no existe determinismo biológico, e.g. que una mujer mida 2 metros, no desestima que la media estadística de hombres sean más altos que mujeres.
El libro está repleto de estadística. Mucha estadística. Por suerte no es el desarrollo, únicamente los datos ya limpios sobre los resultados de los estudios ya realizados. En fin, si leemos libros como este, nos percatamos que los hombres, somos una verdadera mierda. No sé en qué momento de la evolución fuimos tan proclives a matar, violar, hacer guerra, destripar, descorazonar, despellejar, y otros cientos de verbos que a uno enferma, pero es lo que hacemos (estadísticamente más) los hombres. No hay mujeres líderes de carteles de coca. No hay mujer genocida. El feminismo politizado debe de empezar a reconocer las diferencias que existen entre hombre y mujer para poder entendernos. Leyendo a De Beauvoir (que de hecho es uno de mis libros favoritos), y sabiendo que ella fue comunista, se entrevistó con Castro, con el Che y todo, y pese a que comete un error grave al decir en su máxima "mujer no nace, se hace" (producto de juntarse con el imbécil de Dérrida), no desestimo la última línea de su libro, decía algo como que "si vivimos hombres y mujeres en el mismo mundo, debemos empezar a respetarnos los unos a los otros".
David M. Buss es uno de los más respetados divulgadores de psicología evolutiva, y leeré muchos más libros de él, precisamente para entender el por qué de la violencia masculina. Richard L. Currier en su libro "Unbound", cita un estudio en el que determina que posiblemente los Neanderthales eran más -arcaicos-, salvajes o más violentos porque su dieta superaba el 60% de carne magra. (el veganismo es una mierda por cierto, ni me vengan con ese cuento superfluo y moralista), por lo que creería que arrastramos consigo algo de esa violencia, sumada a la que ya tenemos de nuestros propios antepasados. En fin, solo estos libros son los que van a ayudar a comprender quiénes en verdad somos y cómo aprender a sobrellevarnos.
Aprovecho este review para expresar mi pesar. Goodreads anunció a los ganadores de sus awards en el año 2021, y literalmente, existen 14 categorías de "ficción" (romance, comics y otras con el título de ficción). Ellos en su página indicaron que "Ciencia", y demás ramas, estarán dentro de una categoría que se llama "No ficción". Con esa misma lógica, entonces que los awards solo tengan dos categorías para votar, "Ficción" y "No Ficción", pero lo único que veo es que NO EXISTE EVIDENCIA DE QUE SE PROMUEVA LECTURA SERIA Y DE CIENCIA. Eliminaron la categoría con subterfugios idiotas, solo para promocionar libros de young reader y otras agendas politizadas.
Leer psicología evolutiva es incómodo, pero lamentablemente es la realidad. Si quieres ser feminista, de verdad, debes de leer este tipo de lecturas. Son las únicas que definen y muestran tal y como es a los sexos. Desde que E.O. Wilson fue desestimado por la horda de progres de su época, es una rama en florecimiento pese al auge de una emocracia o cancel culture. La psicología evolutiva contempla el estudio del homo sapiens, considerando cómo la evolución ha moldeado nuestro cableado cerebral, por tanto, todo nuestro comportamiento. Los hombres ven porno, las mujeres casi no. Y un sin fín de diferencias que aburriría a cualquiera. Por tanto, es importante mencionar que así como principios cosmológicos en la Cosmología, o principios legales en Derecho, existe un principio que determina que no existe determinismo biológico, e.g. que una mujer mida 2 metros, no desestima que la media estadística de hombres sean más altos que mujeres.
El libro está repleto de estadística. Mucha estadística. Por suerte no es el desarrollo, únicamente los datos ya limpios sobre los resultados de los estudios ya realizados. En fin, si leemos libros como este, nos percatamos que los hombres, somos una verdadera mierda. No sé en qué momento de la evolución fuimos tan proclives a matar, violar, hacer guerra, destripar, descorazonar, despellejar, y otros cientos de verbos que a uno enferma, pero es lo que hacemos (estadísticamente más) los hombres. No hay mujeres líderes de carteles de coca. No hay mujer genocida. El feminismo politizado debe de empezar a reconocer las diferencias que existen entre hombre y mujer para poder entendernos. Leyendo a De Beauvoir (que de hecho es uno de mis libros favoritos), y sabiendo que ella fue comunista, se entrevistó con Castro, con el Che y todo, y pese a que comete un error grave al decir en su máxima "mujer no nace, se hace" (producto de juntarse con el imbécil de Dérrida), no desestimo la última línea de su libro, decía algo como que "si vivimos hombres y mujeres en el mismo mundo, debemos empezar a respetarnos los unos a los otros".
David M. Buss es uno de los más respetados divulgadores de psicología evolutiva, y leeré muchos más libros de él, precisamente para entender el por qué de la violencia masculina. Richard L. Currier en su libro "Unbound", cita un estudio en el que determina que posiblemente los Neanderthales eran más -arcaicos-, salvajes o más violentos porque su dieta superaba el 60% de carne magra. (el veganismo es una mierda por cierto, ni me vengan con ese cuento superfluo y moralista), por lo que creería que arrastramos consigo algo de esa violencia, sumada a la que ya tenemos de nuestros propios antepasados. En fin, solo estos libros son los que van a ayudar a comprender quiénes en verdad somos y cómo aprender a sobrellevarnos.
Aprovecho este review para expresar mi pesar. Goodreads anunció a los ganadores de sus awards en el año 2021, y literalmente, existen 14 categorías de "ficción" (romance, comics y otras con el título de ficción). Ellos en su página indicaron que "Ciencia", y demás ramas, estarán dentro de una categoría que se llama "No ficción". Con esa misma lógica, entonces que los awards solo tengan dos categorías para votar, "Ficción" y "No Ficción", pero lo único que veo es que NO EXISTE EVIDENCIA DE QUE SE PROMUEVA LECTURA SERIA Y DE CIENCIA. Eliminaron la categoría con subterfugios idiotas, solo para promocionar libros de young reader y otras agendas politizadas.
August 3, 2017
برای خواستگاری رفتن خوبه، بخونیدش
:)
:)
March 21, 2019
The book contains a lot of contradictory information. Facts just don’t go along together. Book has overly bad structure and if I am not interested in subject I wouldn't read it at all.
I have doubts about almost every sentence in it.
But here is some of my concerns about content:
This book talks about resources but doesn’t even contain definition of it. I guess author afraid to say word “money” to have even more doubts and controversials about this book. But I will use word money since everybody knows that this is the most valuable and flexible resource(In any case, I don’t think there are women who have sex for salt or piece of meat nowadays)
The main point of all this book that money is the main and ONLY thing that women look for in a man: author mentioned something about qualities, but he ends up wiring everything to money and saying that everything else is showing that you have actual money and if you don’t have any money, qualities won't help you anyway. But if woman doesn’t have an option among men with money she can choose a man who may have money in the future. As I see the problem with that, when the man gets actual money he will break with her since he will have access to more quality, younger girls that he didn’t have before(As author said in his book), in that case, there is no reasons for the woman to play this scenario in the first place. What women don't do according examples in this book. All examples author provides in the book say: “Women go with a man who have/offer/gives more.” And along with that author said that according his studies “showing money when meeting a woman doesn't work, because they do not want money in the present, they want it in the future” WTF? How author's brain can combine that together?
And after that author said that “Women look for in the long-term and short-term partner the same thing”. What is the point to splitting them in the first place? As I understand to prove author's point and forget about that as it was done with qualities.
Women should require to pay them for every sexual interaction, and even before that. And they should feel more sexual arousal the more money you give them along author’s theory. There is no any evolutionary point in that idea otherwise. I don’t know about author experience but it’s not true according my experience.
Talking about 30% “golden” ratio for women’s pelvis. There is no such thing like 30% it vary in high amount in Miss Universe winners. There was time in history when women wear corsets and had very thing wast, plus there are some ethnicity differences in pelvis, Women in some countries have very big pelvic bones. Since models can look not very good without clothes sometimes, but they look good dressed up. We also can take into account that posture of models when photos are taken can also affect overall look and feel.
And it doesn't look that women’s make up somehow related to look as 16-18 year girls. Often girls look more mature with makeup even if they are young. The overall image of beautiful women is older than 18 years old girl. Also I don’t think that rainbow of cosmetic colors somehow related to women looking young.
But author didn’t bother himself to figure out these stuff and take them into account.
Author used part of data that he liked and showed it in a way that proves his theory and his own personal view of relationships. There is no any logical way to understand this book, you have to just believe it.
And there are a lot more concerns there. I just can’t write a book about what is wrong with this book.
What I hate the most in this book is attempt to convince giving up and take everything as it is. You can’t find a partner you like? Just give up and take what is there.
Book goes along with mainstream thinking and ignore every illogical thing that it has.
Author even used marketing and qualities theories, dating coaches love to use, to explain his point. as I understand to get into trust and talk about his theory. And it looks even more illogical since author changes his point to be acceptable in those communities and get reputation there, what brings even more doubts for people who can just think about it a bit. And how disgusting and sneaky it looks?
Author theory do not consistent with evolutionary and developmental neurobiology.
The author could be a good religion leader but not a scientist.
I have doubts about almost every sentence in it.
But here is some of my concerns about content:
This book talks about resources but doesn’t even contain definition of it. I guess author afraid to say word “money” to have even more doubts and controversials about this book. But I will use word money since everybody knows that this is the most valuable and flexible resource(In any case, I don’t think there are women who have sex for salt or piece of meat nowadays)
The main point of all this book that money is the main and ONLY thing that women look for in a man: author mentioned something about qualities, but he ends up wiring everything to money and saying that everything else is showing that you have actual money and if you don’t have any money, qualities won't help you anyway. But if woman doesn’t have an option among men with money she can choose a man who may have money in the future. As I see the problem with that, when the man gets actual money he will break with her since he will have access to more quality, younger girls that he didn’t have before(As author said in his book), in that case, there is no reasons for the woman to play this scenario in the first place. What women don't do according examples in this book. All examples author provides in the book say: “Women go with a man who have/offer/gives more.” And along with that author said that according his studies “showing money when meeting a woman doesn't work, because they do not want money in the present, they want it in the future” WTF? How author's brain can combine that together?
And after that author said that “Women look for in the long-term and short-term partner the same thing”. What is the point to splitting them in the first place? As I understand to prove author's point and forget about that as it was done with qualities.
Women should require to pay them for every sexual interaction, and even before that. And they should feel more sexual arousal the more money you give them along author’s theory. There is no any evolutionary point in that idea otherwise. I don’t know about author experience but it’s not true according my experience.
Talking about 30% “golden” ratio for women’s pelvis. There is no such thing like 30% it vary in high amount in Miss Universe winners. There was time in history when women wear corsets and had very thing wast, plus there are some ethnicity differences in pelvis, Women in some countries have very big pelvic bones. Since models can look not very good without clothes sometimes, but they look good dressed up. We also can take into account that posture of models when photos are taken can also affect overall look and feel.
And it doesn't look that women’s make up somehow related to look as 16-18 year girls. Often girls look more mature with makeup even if they are young. The overall image of beautiful women is older than 18 years old girl. Also I don’t think that rainbow of cosmetic colors somehow related to women looking young.
But author didn’t bother himself to figure out these stuff and take them into account.
Author used part of data that he liked and showed it in a way that proves his theory and his own personal view of relationships. There is no any logical way to understand this book, you have to just believe it.
And there are a lot more concerns there. I just can’t write a book about what is wrong with this book.
What I hate the most in this book is attempt to convince giving up and take everything as it is. You can’t find a partner you like? Just give up and take what is there.
Book goes along with mainstream thinking and ignore every illogical thing that it has.
Author even used marketing and qualities theories, dating coaches love to use, to explain his point. as I understand to get into trust and talk about his theory. And it looks even more illogical since author changes his point to be acceptable in those communities and get reputation there, what brings even more doubts for people who can just think about it a bit. And how disgusting and sneaky it looks?
Author theory do not consistent with evolutionary and developmental neurobiology.
The author could be a good religion leader but not a scientist.
December 8, 2021
"Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power." - Oscar Wilde
Almost a century ago, it was believed that human males and females do not differ much in their sexual strategies. Human sexual psychology was not studied extensively nor the evolutionary psychology behind it.
David M. Buss pioneered the field of evolutionary psychology. This book gives the evolutionary perspective behind human sexual desires. Analogously, he compared the mating strategies of humans and other species. Humans are complex beings. Unlike other species, human females do not undergo any oestrus cycle. Their most fertile period remains hidden. In response, humans developed special mating strategies to attract and retain mates.
These strategies were developed in response to evolution and are deeply embedded beyond our conscious evaluation. This book discloses the strategic secrets of both genders to attract mates. It also gives the evolutionary reason for jealousy and deception. These two behaviours are a mechanism in finding and retaining a mate. This psychological adaptation of deceiving is targeted by cosmetic and clothing companies for profits. Often this puts an unrealistic expectation for both genders.
This book also covers the evolutionary reasons for extramarital affairs, homosexuality, patriarchy, and prostitution. There is no culture where patriarchy is not present. Yuval Noah Harari left the reason for patriarchy unanswered in his book Sapiens. It is answered by David M. Buss to some extent. In competition to attract mates, men strive to compete for more resources. It makes them want to hold more resources than females. This phenomenon was also evident where polygamy is in practice. In a polygamous society, men lose their wives (separation and divorces) if they lose their resources.
It was an interesting read. Even aliens will find this book informative. But for humans, they kind of already know the strategies. But humans and aliens would have preferred the shorter version of the book. They only had to omit the repetitions only.
Favourite Lines and vocabulary:
Mama's baby, Papa's maybe. :P
Mating market.
Almost a century ago, it was believed that human males and females do not differ much in their sexual strategies. Human sexual psychology was not studied extensively nor the evolutionary psychology behind it.
David M. Buss pioneered the field of evolutionary psychology. This book gives the evolutionary perspective behind human sexual desires. Analogously, he compared the mating strategies of humans and other species. Humans are complex beings. Unlike other species, human females do not undergo any oestrus cycle. Their most fertile period remains hidden. In response, humans developed special mating strategies to attract and retain mates.
These strategies were developed in response to evolution and are deeply embedded beyond our conscious evaluation. This book discloses the strategic secrets of both genders to attract mates. It also gives the evolutionary reason for jealousy and deception. These two behaviours are a mechanism in finding and retaining a mate. This psychological adaptation of deceiving is targeted by cosmetic and clothing companies for profits. Often this puts an unrealistic expectation for both genders.
This book also covers the evolutionary reasons for extramarital affairs, homosexuality, patriarchy, and prostitution. There is no culture where patriarchy is not present. Yuval Noah Harari left the reason for patriarchy unanswered in his book Sapiens. It is answered by David M. Buss to some extent. In competition to attract mates, men strive to compete for more resources. It makes them want to hold more resources than females. This phenomenon was also evident where polygamy is in practice. In a polygamous society, men lose their wives (separation and divorces) if they lose their resources.
It was an interesting read. Even aliens will find this book informative. But for humans, they kind of already know the strategies. But humans and aliens would have preferred the shorter version of the book. They only had to omit the repetitions only.
Favourite Lines and vocabulary:
Mama's baby, Papa's maybe. :P
Mating market.
September 23, 2022
Let's say you pick up a book titled, "The evolution of the heart", what should you expect? A book that tells you about the anatomy of the heart alone? No. You will expect to read about how the heart arose from a proto-heart through a gradual series of adaptive steps to the heart. Now desire is not an organ, but you should expect something slightly similar. A book titled "The Evolution of Desire" should at the very least talk about the gradual steps (with advantages) through which animals evolved sexual desire. A book about the STRATEGIES of mate attraction, selection, and retention, no matter how well written, will not suffice to cover for the fact that the EVOLUTION is missing..
In this book, you will discover the various things that men and women find attractive in a mate, how they select mates, how they retain mates, and how they replace mates. What you will absolutely not find is HOW DESIRE OR THE STRATEGIES OF MATING EVOLVED.
In this book, you will discover the various things that men and women find attractive in a mate, how they select mates, how they retain mates, and how they replace mates. What you will absolutely not find is HOW DESIRE OR THE STRATEGIES OF MATING EVOLVED.
October 31, 2019
Women marry thinking their husbands will change, men marry thinking their wives will change, they are both wrong.
March 15, 2021
3,5.
Taip, knyga pykdo. Taip, norėtųsi tikėti, jog didžiaja dalimi nėra taip, kaip aprašyta. Taip, čia aprašomi “poravimosi” metodai ir strategijos dažnai atsispinti anektoduose ir demotyvacijose. Bet kodėl taip yra? Paskaičius už atsakymo galima užmesti kabliuką.
Autorius skatina pažinti skirtingų lyčių partnerio pritraukimo, išlaikymo ir atsikratymo strategijas ir siekti sąmoningo jų implementavimo bei iššaukiamų reakcijų suvokimo. Autorius teikia pasiūlymus kaip šių skirtumų suvokimas gali padėti siekti darnos tarp lyčių tiek siauriuose, tiek plačiuose kontekstuose bei iš tikro atsikratyti patriarchato. Taipogi, pateikiamos ir patriarchato susiformavimo prielaidos. Spoiler alert? Female sexual selection.
Ne visos studijos patogios, ne visi tyrimai tikslūs (studentų apklausų duomenų naudojimas akademijoj tikrai plačiai paplitęs), tad aš siūlyčiau kritiškai vertinti kiekvieną argumentą, sieti jį su turimomis žiniomis bei išsinešti tai, kas tinka jums pagal jūsų įsitikinimus bei vertybes. O išsinešti visai yra ką.
Aš gan atspari provokacijoms ir nepatogiems argumentams, tad išsinešu pozityvių minčių apmąstymams. Knygos pradžioje tikrai nebūčiau tuo patikėjusi.
Taip, knyga pykdo. Taip, norėtųsi tikėti, jog didžiaja dalimi nėra taip, kaip aprašyta. Taip, čia aprašomi “poravimosi” metodai ir strategijos dažnai atsispinti anektoduose ir demotyvacijose. Bet kodėl taip yra? Paskaičius už atsakymo galima užmesti kabliuką.
Autorius skatina pažinti skirtingų lyčių partnerio pritraukimo, išlaikymo ir atsikratymo strategijas ir siekti sąmoningo jų implementavimo bei iššaukiamų reakcijų suvokimo. Autorius teikia pasiūlymus kaip šių skirtumų suvokimas gali padėti siekti darnos tarp lyčių tiek siauriuose, tiek plačiuose kontekstuose bei iš tikro atsikratyti patriarchato. Taipogi, pateikiamos ir patriarchato susiformavimo prielaidos. Spoiler alert? Female sexual selection.
Ne visos studijos patogios, ne visi tyrimai tikslūs (studentų apklausų duomenų naudojimas akademijoj tikrai plačiai paplitęs), tad aš siūlyčiau kritiškai vertinti kiekvieną argumentą, sieti jį su turimomis žiniomis bei išsinešti tai, kas tinka jums pagal jūsų įsitikinimus bei vertybes. O išsinešti visai yra ką.
Aš gan atspari provokacijoms ir nepatogiems argumentams, tad išsinešu pozityvių minčių apmąstymams. Knygos pradžioje tikrai nebūčiau tuo patikėjusi.
October 26, 2022
An excellent explanation and encapsulation of current thinking on the topic of human mating strategies. Relatively short but chock full of details. There's some speculation here but it is informed by the data and it all made sense to me. I'll be including this book on my suggested reading list for my Evolutionary Psychology class.
February 28, 2021
I enjoy reading evolutionary psychology books,because I admire the way they explain human behaviour in dating markets.This book kept me engaged despite its content being somewhat known to me before.
This book is comprehensive without being lengthy, and manages to keep the reader interested throughout its entirety.The author has relied heavily on empirical research, but does not hesitate to make informed guesses where conclusions cannot be readily drawn.
Women have higher standards because they bear the majority of parental investment, and men are ambitious because women prefer men who have high-provisioning capacity.The book also rubbishes the claims of certain contemporary movements that men are women are alike-they are not,their evolved sexual psychologies are different, and they generally look for different qualities in their mates.There are similarities here too,but certain crucial differences exist that cannot be wished away.Men will generally prefer younger,physically attractive women, and women will generally prefer richer,higher status men.
This book is comprehensive without being lengthy, and manages to keep the reader interested throughout its entirety.The author has relied heavily on empirical research, but does not hesitate to make informed guesses where conclusions cannot be readily drawn.
Women have higher standards because they bear the majority of parental investment, and men are ambitious because women prefer men who have high-provisioning capacity.The book also rubbishes the claims of certain contemporary movements that men are women are alike-they are not,their evolved sexual psychologies are different, and they generally look for different qualities in their mates.There are similarities here too,but certain crucial differences exist that cannot be wished away.Men will generally prefer younger,physically attractive women, and women will generally prefer richer,higher status men.
January 6, 2022
انطلاقاً من أساسيات تشارلز داروين في "الانتقاء الجنسي" وأسس علم النفس التطوري، يخوض ديفيد بوس، أحد مؤسسي هذا العلم، في المجال الشائك جداً في السلوك الانساني وهو: التزواج. بدايةً بالخصائص التي تجذب كل جنس في الآخر، مروراً بالارتباط والمحافظة عليه، وليس انتهاءاً بالانفصال والصراع بين الجنسين.
يقوم بذلك من خلال عرض طويل وموسّع لنتائج عشرات الدراسات التي أجراها هو وغيره على عدد ضخم من العينات، عبر ثقافات وبيئات وأديان مختلفة. والتي تقود لجملة من السلوكيات البشرية المشتركة من ناحية استراتيجيات التزاوج وتفضيلات الشريك، وكذلك توضح أوجه الاختلافات الواضحة بين الجنسين، وماهو مشترك بينهم.
After reading about the intertwine between our behaviours, biology and evolution, I always mention that: we should know our biology to understand our behaviour. We should give biology as much importance as culture. After reading this book, I can add: nothing makes sense in human behaviour except in the light of Evolutionary Psychology-rephrasing Theodosius Dobzhansky.
يقوم بذلك من خلال عرض طويل وموسّع لنتائج عشرات الدراسات التي أجراها هو وغيره على عدد ضخم من العينات، عبر ثقافات وبيئات وأديان مختلفة. والتي تقود لجملة من السلوكيات البشرية المشتركة من ناحية استراتيجيات التزاوج وتفضيلات الشريك، وكذلك توضح أوجه الاختلافات الواضحة بين الجنسين، وماهو مشترك بينهم.
After reading about the intertwine between our behaviours, biology and evolution, I always mention that: we should know our biology to understand our behaviour. We should give biology as much importance as culture. After reading this book, I can add: nothing makes sense in human behaviour except in the light of Evolutionary Psychology-rephrasing Theodosius Dobzhansky.
November 15, 2012
Although I disagree with many of Buss' hypotheses, I still enjoyed this book a great amount and found it insanely fun to discuss with friends and classmates in the Psychology field.
January 27, 2015
Excellent book!!
Very good coverage of the subject.
Loved the final chapter@!
Very good coverage of the subject.
Loved the final chapter@!
February 27, 2015
I read the first one hundred pages or so and then skimmed the rest. Interesting topic but written in such a dry and boring manner.
August 8, 2019
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Начиная читать эту книгу, я сомневался, что закончу её или что дойду хотя бы до половины, т.к. эволюционная психология, даже связанная с такой жаркой (интересной) темой, всё же не очень увлекает меня. Все предыдущие книги, которые связаны с биологией или точнее книги по психологии, которые связаны с биологией, меня редко когда удивляли или захватывали полностью. Мне всегда видится, что авторы в этих книгах пишут так, что они знают ответы на все вопросы и что все остальные ответвления психологии, (психоанализ, социальная психология и пр.) ломаного гроша не стоят, что они вообще не нужны и что биология всё расставит по своим места�� в психологии. Однако к моему удивлению, я не только не обнаружил такой стиль в данной книге, но наоборот она мне показалось крайне интересной даже для тех, кто не является поклонником эволюционной психологии. Некоторые обязательно найдут книгу чрезмерно сухой. Да, это отнюдь не развлекательный научпоп в стиле «Магия утра» или «Мужчины с Марса, Женщины с Венеры». Это чистая академическая психология типа «Эффект Люцифера» Филипа Зимбардо или книг Роберта Сапольски. Поэтому я книгу рекомендовал бы только тем, кто готов к серьёзной литературе по психологии. В качестве утешения, если можно использовать подобное слово, я бы добавил, что книга, тем не менее, очень интересная, читается всё же относительно легко и содержит по-настоящему уйму научного материала, центром которого являются многочисленные опросы людей разных возрастов из разных стран мира. Автор не соврал, книга предлагает уникальный анализ человеческой сексуальности или точнее, отношения между мужчиной и женщиной с точки зрения эволюционной психологии на основе проведённого глобального опроса множества людей из совершенно разных стран мира.
Итак, автор с помощью анализа проведённых исследований (опросов) рассматривает практически все важные вопросы, связанные с сексуальными отношениями между мужчиной и женщиной. В центр этого обсуждения мы можем положить или расположить такое распространённое мнение как: «для мужчины в женщине важна, прежде всего, внешняя привлекательность, т.к. она говорит о способности женщины дать здоровое потомство, а для женщины в мужчине важно, прежде всего, его способность обеспечить и детей и жену необходимыми благоприятными условиями жизни». Это известнейшее определение старо как мир и многие даже могу после этого вообще передумать читать эту книгу. Собственно, это одна из причин, почему я так неохотно взялся за книгу. Однако автор так виртуозно смог рассмотреть этот вопрос, так преподнести тему, а главное раскрыть её настолько широко и настолько интересно, что я даже и не заметил, как прочитал половину. Да, многое мы уже знаем, но мы определённо не знаем в таких деталях и почему это, всем известное видение, действительно работает. К примеру, автор чрезвычайно интересно пишет о том, почему для женщин так важно финансовое благополучие (мужчин), которое они оценивают в опросах выше всех остальных (мужчины, соответственно, также высоко оценивают внешнюю привлекательность), почему для женщин важен интеллект мужчины (хорошее образование), почему они не терпят ленивых и почему им важно наличие у мужчины уверенности в своих силах, а точнее активность, чтобы это был «человек действия». Всё вышеперечисленное как бы сигналит женщине, «этот мужчина сможет обеспечить семью» или «он сможет принести добычу домой, а не будет затоптан либо самой добычей, либо конкурентами». И это объясняет, почему в книгах типа «Пятьдесят оттенков серого» мужчина всегда активный или человек действия (dominant), финансово обеспеченный (миллионер), со спортивной фигурой и становится однолюбом, когда встречает главную героиню. Все ингредиенты, что так нравятся многим женщинам (пусть даже не осознанно), присутствуют в книге. И именно поэтому женщины (в большинстве случаев) оставляют за бортом тех мужчин, кто с финансовой точки зрения не состоятелен. Или можно даже сказать так: женщины не обращают внимания на мужчин-официантов и на пр. низкосоциальные профессии именно потому, что такой мужчина откровенно бесперспективен с точки зрения создания семьи (вот она, эволюция в действии). Как пишет автор, даже в том случаи, если женщина изначально обеспечена благодаря своему собственному высокому статусу. И кстати, по словам автора, маскулинность, ещё один фактор который важен для женщин с точки зрения мужской привлекательности. Конечно, мы не должны понимать всё это буквально, т.к. люди, довольно сложные создания, да и плюс, как писал Фрейд, они зачастую сами не осознают те подсознательные силы, что руководят их действиями. Поэтому это лишь дополнительные балы, но отнюдь не готовый рецепт, действующий со 100% гарантией.
Что касается мужчин, то мне очень понравилось замечание, что некрасивые женщины – почему их не выбирают мужчины – снижают социальный статус мужчины (в понятии мужчины) и это ещё одна важная причина, почему мужчины не спешат их выбирать (если только не ситуация «на безрыбье и рак щука»).
Вообще в книге много самого разнообразного материала включая такие темы (с точки зрения эволюционной психологии) как: изнасилование и harassment, измена, ревность, способы привлечения приглянувшегося партнёра и т.д.
When I started reading this book, I doubted that I would finish it or that I would reach at least a half of it, because evolutionary psychology, even related to such a hot (interesting) topic, still does not really fascinate me. All previous books that are related to biology, or more precisely books on psychology that are related to biology, I have rarely been surprised or captured by them completely. It always seems to me that the authors in these books write in such a way that they know the answers to all the questions and that all the other branches of psychology (psychoanalysis, social psychology, etc.) are not worth a broken penny, that they are not needed at all and that biology will arrange everything in its place in psychology. However, to my surprise, not only have I not found such a style in this book, but on the contrary, it seemed to me extremely interesting even for those who are not fans of evolutionary psychology. Some people will find the book dry. Yes, it's not an entertaining science pop in the style of "The Miracle Morning" by Hal Elrod or "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus" by John Gray. This is pure academic psychology like "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip G. Zimbardo or Robert M. Sapolsky's books. Therefore, I would recommend the book only to those who are ready for serious literature on psychology. As a consolation, if I could use such a word, I would add that the book, however, is very interesting, it is still relatively easy to read and contains a lot of scientific material, the center of which is numerous surveys of people of different ages from around the world. The author did not lie, the book offers a unique analysis of human sexuality or, more precisely, the relationship between a man and a woman in terms of evolutionary psychology based on a global survey of many people from all over the world.
Thus, the author considers almost all important issues related to sexual relations between a man and a woman with the help of the analysis of the conducted researches (polls). In the center of this discussion we can put or place such a common opinion as: "For a man in a woman it is important, first of all, her external attractiveness, as it shows the ability of a woman to give healthy offspring, and for a woman in a man it is important, first of all, his ability to provide both children and his wife with the necessary favorable living conditions". This is the most famous definition of the old world and many of us can even change our minds about reading this book. Actually, this is one of the reasons why I was so reluctant to take up the book. However, the author was so masterly able to consider this issue, so to present the topic, and most importantly, to reveal it so widely and so interestingly that I did not even notice how to read half of it. Yes, we already know a lot about it, but we definitely don't know in such details and why it really works. For example, the author writes very interestingly about why the financial well-being of men is so important for women, which they evaluate in surveys above all others (men, accordingly, also highly appreciate the external attractiveness of women). Why do men's mental abilities (good education) matter to women? Why they do not tolerate lazy men and why it is important for women that men have confidence in themselves, or rather that they are "men of action". All of the above signals to the woman that "this man will be able to provide for the family" or "he will be able to bring the prey home, and will not be trampled either by the prey itself or by competitors". This explains why in books like Fifty Shades of Grey, a man is always active or a man of action (a dominant), financially secure (a millionaire), with a sports body. All the ingredients that many women like so much (even if not consciously), are present in the book. And that's why women (in most cases) leave overboard those men who are not financially wealthy. Or we can even say this: women do not pay attention to male waiters and other low-society professions, precisely because such a man is frankly unpromising from the point of view of creating a family (here it is the evolution in action). As the author writes, even if the woman is already financially secured and already has a high social status. And by the way, according to the author, masculinity is another factor that is important for women in terms of male attractiveness. Of course, we should not understand all this literally, because people are quite complex creatures, and, as Freud wrote, they often do not realize the subconscious forces that lead their actions. Therefore, these are only additional points, but not a ready-made recipe, valid with a 100% guarantee.
As for men, I liked the remark that ugly women - why men don't choose them - reduce the social status of men (in the concept of men) and this is another important reason why men don't rush to choose them (unless the situation is "Better a small fish than an empty dish").
In general, the book contains a lot of various materials, including such topics (from the point of view of evolutionary psychology) as: rape and harassment, infidelity, jealousy, ways of attracting the desired partner, etc.
Начиная читать эту книгу, я сомневался, что закончу её или что дойду хотя бы до половины, т.к. эволюционная психология, даже связанная с такой жаркой (интересной) темой, всё же не очень увлекает меня. Все предыдущие книги, которые связаны с биологией или точнее книги по психологии, которые связаны с биологией, меня редко когда удивляли или захватывали полностью. Мне всегда видится, что авторы в этих книгах пишут так, что они знают ответы на все вопросы и что все остальные ответвления психологии, (психоанализ, социальная психология и пр.) ломаного гроша не стоят, что они вообще не нужны и что биология всё расставит по своим места�� в психологии. Однако к моему удивлению, я не только не обнаружил такой стиль в данной книге, но наоборот она мне показалось крайне интересной даже для тех, кто не является поклонником эволюционной психологии. Некоторые обязательно найдут книгу чрезмерно сухой. Да, это отнюдь не развлекательный научпоп в стиле «Магия утра» или «Мужчины с Марса, Женщины с Венеры». Это чистая академическая психология типа «Эффект Люцифера» Филипа Зимбардо или книг Роберта Сапольски. Поэтому я книгу рекомендовал бы только тем, кто готов к серьёзной литературе по психологии. В качестве утешения, если можно использовать подобное слово, я бы добавил, что книга, тем не менее, очень интересная, читается всё же относительно легко и содержит по-настоящему уйму научного материала, центром которого являются многочисленные опросы людей разных возрастов из разных стран мира. Автор не соврал, книга предлагает уникальный анализ человеческой сексуальности или точнее, отношения между мужчиной и женщиной с точки зрения эволюционной психологии на основе проведённого глобального опроса множества людей из совершенно разных стран мира.
Итак, автор с помощью анализа проведённых исследований (опросов) рассматривает практически все важные вопросы, связанные с сексуальными отношениями между мужчиной и женщиной. В центр этого обсуждения мы можем положить или расположить такое распространённое мнение как: «для мужчины в женщине важна, прежде всего, внешняя привлекательность, т.к. она говорит о способности женщины дать здоровое потомство, а для женщины в мужчине важно, прежде всего, его способность обеспечить и детей и жену необходимыми благоприятными условиями жизни». Это известнейшее определение старо как мир и многие даже могу после этого вообще передумать читать эту книгу. Собственно, это одна из причин, почему я так неохотно взялся за книгу. Однако автор так виртуозно смог рассмотреть этот вопрос, так преподнести тему, а главное раскрыть её настолько широко и настолько интересно, что я даже и не заметил, как прочитал половину. Да, многое мы уже знаем, но мы определённо не знаем в таких деталях и почему это, всем известное видение, действительно работает. К примеру, автор чрезвычайно интересно пишет о том, почему для женщин так важно финансовое благополучие (мужчин), которое они оценивают в опросах выше всех остальных (мужчины, соответственно, также высоко оценивают внешнюю привлекательность), почему для женщин важен интеллект мужчины (хорошее образование), почему они не терпят ленивых и почему им важно наличие у мужчины уверенности в своих силах, а точнее активность, чтобы это был «человек действия». Всё вышеперечисленное как бы сигналит женщине, «этот мужчина сможет обеспечить семью» или «он сможет принести добычу домой, а не будет затоптан либо самой добычей, либо конкурентами». И это объясняет, почему в книгах типа «Пятьдесят оттенков серого» мужчина всегда активный или человек действия (dominant), финансово обеспеченный (миллионер), со спортивной фигурой и становится однолюбом, когда встречает главную героиню. Все ингредиенты, что так нравятся многим женщинам (пусть даже не осознанно), присутствуют в книге. И именно поэтому женщины (в большинстве случаев) оставляют за бортом тех мужчин, кто с финансовой точки зрения не состоятелен. Или можно даже сказать так: женщины не обращают внимания на мужчин-официантов и на пр. низкосоциальные профессии именно потому, что такой мужчина откровенно бесперспективен с точки зрения создания семьи (вот она, эволюция в действии). Как пишет автор, даже в том случаи, если женщина изначально обеспечена благодаря своему собственному высокому статусу. И кстати, по словам автора, маскулинность, ещё один фактор который важен для женщин с точки зрения мужской привлекательности. Конечно, мы не должны понимать всё это буквально, т.к. люди, довольно сложные создания, да и плюс, как писал Фрейд, они зачастую сами не осознают те подсознательные силы, что руководят их действиями. Поэтому это лишь дополнительные балы, но отнюдь не готовый рецепт, действующий со 100% гарантией.
Что касается мужчин, то мне очень понравилось замечание, что некрасивые женщины – почему их не выбирают мужчины – снижают социальный статус мужчины (в понятии мужчины) и это ещё одна важная причина, почему мужчины не спешат их выбирать (если только не ситуация «на безрыбье и рак щука»).
Вообще в книге много самого разнообразного материала включая такие темы (с точки зрения эволюционной психологии) как: изнасилование и harassment, измена, ревность, способы привлечения приглянувшегося партнёра и т.д.
When I started reading this book, I doubted that I would finish it or that I would reach at least a half of it, because evolutionary psychology, even related to such a hot (interesting) topic, still does not really fascinate me. All previous books that are related to biology, or more precisely books on psychology that are related to biology, I have rarely been surprised or captured by them completely. It always seems to me that the authors in these books write in such a way that they know the answers to all the questions and that all the other branches of psychology (psychoanalysis, social psychology, etc.) are not worth a broken penny, that they are not needed at all and that biology will arrange everything in its place in psychology. However, to my surprise, not only have I not found such a style in this book, but on the contrary, it seemed to me extremely interesting even for those who are not fans of evolutionary psychology. Some people will find the book dry. Yes, it's not an entertaining science pop in the style of "The Miracle Morning" by Hal Elrod or "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus" by John Gray. This is pure academic psychology like "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip G. Zimbardo or Robert M. Sapolsky's books. Therefore, I would recommend the book only to those who are ready for serious literature on psychology. As a consolation, if I could use such a word, I would add that the book, however, is very interesting, it is still relatively easy to read and contains a lot of scientific material, the center of which is numerous surveys of people of different ages from around the world. The author did not lie, the book offers a unique analysis of human sexuality or, more precisely, the relationship between a man and a woman in terms of evolutionary psychology based on a global survey of many people from all over the world.
Thus, the author considers almost all important issues related to sexual relations between a man and a woman with the help of the analysis of the conducted researches (polls). In the center of this discussion we can put or place such a common opinion as: "For a man in a woman it is important, first of all, her external attractiveness, as it shows the ability of a woman to give healthy offspring, and for a woman in a man it is important, first of all, his ability to provide both children and his wife with the necessary favorable living conditions". This is the most famous definition of the old world and many of us can even change our minds about reading this book. Actually, this is one of the reasons why I was so reluctant to take up the book. However, the author was so masterly able to consider this issue, so to present the topic, and most importantly, to reveal it so widely and so interestingly that I did not even notice how to read half of it. Yes, we already know a lot about it, but we definitely don't know in such details and why it really works. For example, the author writes very interestingly about why the financial well-being of men is so important for women, which they evaluate in surveys above all others (men, accordingly, also highly appreciate the external attractiveness of women). Why do men's mental abilities (good education) matter to women? Why they do not tolerate lazy men and why it is important for women that men have confidence in themselves, or rather that they are "men of action". All of the above signals to the woman that "this man will be able to provide for the family" or "he will be able to bring the prey home, and will not be trampled either by the prey itself or by competitors". This explains why in books like Fifty Shades of Grey, a man is always active or a man of action (a dominant), financially secure (a millionaire), with a sports body. All the ingredients that many women like so much (even if not consciously), are present in the book. And that's why women (in most cases) leave overboard those men who are not financially wealthy. Or we can even say this: women do not pay attention to male waiters and other low-society professions, precisely because such a man is frankly unpromising from the point of view of creating a family (here it is the evolution in action). As the author writes, even if the woman is already financially secured and already has a high social status. And by the way, according to the author, masculinity is another factor that is important for women in terms of male attractiveness. Of course, we should not understand all this literally, because people are quite complex creatures, and, as Freud wrote, they often do not realize the subconscious forces that lead their actions. Therefore, these are only additional points, but not a ready-made recipe, valid with a 100% guarantee.
As for men, I liked the remark that ugly women - why men don't choose them - reduce the social status of men (in the concept of men) and this is another important reason why men don't rush to choose them (unless the situation is "Better a small fish than an empty dish").
In general, the book contains a lot of various materials, including such topics (from the point of view of evolutionary psychology) as: rape and harassment, infidelity, jealousy, ways of attracting the desired partner, etc.
December 18, 2017
Quotes:
"In western society, lifelong monogamy is often held up to be the ideal. Anyone who does not conform to this practise is regarded as deviant, immature, sinful, or a failure. Such a judgement may turn out to be the manifestation of the underlying sexual strategies of the person who upholds it. It is often in the best interest of a women, for example, to convince others of the ideal of lifelong love. Promiscuous women can pose a threat to monogamous women, siphoning off the resources, attention, and commitment of their husbands. It is often the best interest of a man to convince others to adopt a monogamous strategy, even if he fails to follow it himself. Promiscuous men usurp single men's mating opportunities and threaten to cuckold married men. The values we espouse about sexuality are often manifestations of our evolved mating strategies."
"The combination of strong coalitions among mn and relatively weak coalitions among women, according to Barbara Smuts, may have contributed historically to men's dominance over women. Women's preferences for a seccessfull, ambitious and resourceful mate and men's competitive mating strategies evolved together"
"To assume that men and women are psychologically the same, as was generally done in tradicional social science, goes against what is now known about evolved sexual psychology. Given the power of sexual selection, under which each sex competes for access to desirable mates of the other sex, it would be astonishing to find thar mens and women were psychologically identical in aspects of mating about which they have faced different problems of reproduction for millions of years. At this point in history, we can no longer doubt that men and women differ in their preferences for a mate: primarily for youth and physical attractiveness in one case, and for status, maturity, and economic resources in the other."
"Children growing up in uncertain and unpredictable environments, in short, learn that they cannot rely on a single mate. They therefore opt for a sexual life that starts early and that inclinesthemto seek immediate resources from multiple, temporary mates. In contrast, children who grow up in stable homes with predictably investing parents opt for a strategy of permanent mating because they expect to attract a stable, high-investing mate. The evidence from children of divirced homes supports this theory.Such children reach puberty earlier, engage in intercourse earlier, and have more numerous sex partners than their peers from intact homes."
"..but the anger that women feel when secually coerced and the rage men feel when cuckolded arise from our evolved mating strategies, and not from capitalism, culture or socialization. Evolution operates by the ruthless criterion of reproductive success, no matter how repugnant we may find the strategies produced by that process, and no matter how abhorrent the consequences of those strategies may be."
"There is no solidarity among all men or all women that creates a conflict between the sexes. Rather, members of one sex generally favor a common set of strategies which differs from the typical strategies pursued by members of the other sex. It is posible to speak of conflict between the sexes because the ways in which men and women typically conflict result from the strategies they share with their own sex."
"Lifelong sexual fidelity promotes harmony between a man and a woman, but it comes at a price for both sexes in relinquished opportunities. Fullfilling each other's evolved desires is the key in harmony between a man and a woman. A woman's happiness increases when the man brings more economic resources tot he union and shows kindness, affection and commitment. A man's happiness increases when the woman is more physically attractive than he is, and when she shows kindness, affection and commitment. Those who fulfill each other's desires have more fulfilling relationships. Our evolved desires, in short, proveide the essential ingredients for solving the mystery of harmony between the sexes."
"We are the first species in the known history of three and a half billion years of life on earth with the capacity to control our own destiny. The prospect of designing our destiny remains excellent to the degree that we comprehend our evolutionary past. Only by understanding why these human strategies have evolved can we control where we are going"
Women orgasm:
"... Mr. Rights hypothesis posts that female orgasms serves as a mate selection device. By choosing a man with whom she is orgasmic, a woman is presumed to be selecting a man who will stick around and invest in her and her children. Perhaps a man's sencitivity to a woman's desires, his ability to read her needs, and effort to ensure her sexual satisfaction auger well for his future as a good husband and a good dad." ; "Paternity confidence hypothesis focuses on the signal value her orgasm provides to the partner. It tells the man that she is sexually satisfied with him, and hence will not be motivated to seek sexual gratification elsewhere (...) it increases the likelihhod that he will remain commited to her and invest in her children." ; " Paternity confusion hypothesis, on the context of langur monkeys and macaques, female orgasm evolved to promote promiscuous mating. By promoting paternal uncertainty, a female could reduce the odds that any male in the group might kill her offsoring " ; "Sperm retention hypothesis, female orgasms functions to draw sperm intocervix and uterine cavity, increasing the odds of conception." ; " % ofwomen believe that sex without orgasm can be truly satisfying for the woman. Interestingly 10% more men than women believe that female orgasm is necessary for the full enjoyment , suggesting that it might be a greater preoccupation of men than women."
" In short, Mr. Right hypothesis receives some empirical support, but not in the form originally proposed. "Women are more orgasmic with regular mates who have good genetic quality, as indexed by anatomical measures of symmetry and judgements of physical attractiveness. But if they are having affairs, women preferentially choose affair partners of high genetic quality and then experience more frequent sexual orgasms in the context of their liaisons. For women having affairs, orgasm may facilitate a mating strategy of getting the best of both worlds-investment from one man who provides parenting and resources for the children, and goos genes from another man who provides little investment, but who increases the genetic quality of her children."
Affairs:
"Psichologists have identified 3 distinct attachment styles. Secure attachment style find it easy to get close to others, trust that others will be there for them and tend to form mature, anxiety-free romantic relationships. Those with and avoidant attachment style are uncorfortable with psychological closeness, find it hard to trust others and avoid being dependant on them. Those with anxious/ambivalent attachment style have deep insecurity about wheter or not others really love them.They want to get close to others and merge with a loved one, but feel that others are reluctant to get truly intimate with them. They feel that their desire for togethrtness can scare someone away (..) Secure attachment is unrelated to affairs probability-secure women are neither more nor less likely to have ana ffair. The other two styles are definetlycorrelated with extra-pair sex. Avoident women are less likely to have affairs. Anxious/ambivalent women are more likely to have affair. It´s as thought the thirst for intimacy combined with a fear of abandonment from a primary mate leads them into the arms of other men. "
"We have partial answers to why women have affairs.For women who stay with their primary partners, affairs are likely to serve as "good genes" function: obtaining investment from one man and superior DNA from another. For other women affairs serve as mate switching functions: They give women a boost in self-esteem they need to propel themselves out of one relatioship in their quest for intimacy in another."
Menstrual cycle effect:
"Women in the least fertile phase of their cycle were most attracted to the face that was slightly feminized. In sharp contrast, women in the most fertile phase of their cycle were drawn to the face that was 30 percent maculinized. The end result is that somewhat masculinized faces signal heritable fitness-a healthy immune system that can be passed down to children. In essence wome's preference for maculinized faces at ovulaion reveals a preference for "good genes" that are sometimes better secured from affair partners than from regular mates. Women may find the "good guy" qualities most attractive in regular mates since they indicate the long-term provisoning."
"In western society, lifelong monogamy is often held up to be the ideal. Anyone who does not conform to this practise is regarded as deviant, immature, sinful, or a failure. Such a judgement may turn out to be the manifestation of the underlying sexual strategies of the person who upholds it. It is often in the best interest of a women, for example, to convince others of the ideal of lifelong love. Promiscuous women can pose a threat to monogamous women, siphoning off the resources, attention, and commitment of their husbands. It is often the best interest of a man to convince others to adopt a monogamous strategy, even if he fails to follow it himself. Promiscuous men usurp single men's mating opportunities and threaten to cuckold married men. The values we espouse about sexuality are often manifestations of our evolved mating strategies."
"The combination of strong coalitions among mn and relatively weak coalitions among women, according to Barbara Smuts, may have contributed historically to men's dominance over women. Women's preferences for a seccessfull, ambitious and resourceful mate and men's competitive mating strategies evolved together"
"To assume that men and women are psychologically the same, as was generally done in tradicional social science, goes against what is now known about evolved sexual psychology. Given the power of sexual selection, under which each sex competes for access to desirable mates of the other sex, it would be astonishing to find thar mens and women were psychologically identical in aspects of mating about which they have faced different problems of reproduction for millions of years. At this point in history, we can no longer doubt that men and women differ in their preferences for a mate: primarily for youth and physical attractiveness in one case, and for status, maturity, and economic resources in the other."
"Children growing up in uncertain and unpredictable environments, in short, learn that they cannot rely on a single mate. They therefore opt for a sexual life that starts early and that inclinesthemto seek immediate resources from multiple, temporary mates. In contrast, children who grow up in stable homes with predictably investing parents opt for a strategy of permanent mating because they expect to attract a stable, high-investing mate. The evidence from children of divirced homes supports this theory.Such children reach puberty earlier, engage in intercourse earlier, and have more numerous sex partners than their peers from intact homes."
"..but the anger that women feel when secually coerced and the rage men feel when cuckolded arise from our evolved mating strategies, and not from capitalism, culture or socialization. Evolution operates by the ruthless criterion of reproductive success, no matter how repugnant we may find the strategies produced by that process, and no matter how abhorrent the consequences of those strategies may be."
"There is no solidarity among all men or all women that creates a conflict between the sexes. Rather, members of one sex generally favor a common set of strategies which differs from the typical strategies pursued by members of the other sex. It is posible to speak of conflict between the sexes because the ways in which men and women typically conflict result from the strategies they share with their own sex."
"Lifelong sexual fidelity promotes harmony between a man and a woman, but it comes at a price for both sexes in relinquished opportunities. Fullfilling each other's evolved desires is the key in harmony between a man and a woman. A woman's happiness increases when the man brings more economic resources tot he union and shows kindness, affection and commitment. A man's happiness increases when the woman is more physically attractive than he is, and when she shows kindness, affection and commitment. Those who fulfill each other's desires have more fulfilling relationships. Our evolved desires, in short, proveide the essential ingredients for solving the mystery of harmony between the sexes."
"We are the first species in the known history of three and a half billion years of life on earth with the capacity to control our own destiny. The prospect of designing our destiny remains excellent to the degree that we comprehend our evolutionary past. Only by understanding why these human strategies have evolved can we control where we are going"
Women orgasm:
"... Mr. Rights hypothesis posts that female orgasms serves as a mate selection device. By choosing a man with whom she is orgasmic, a woman is presumed to be selecting a man who will stick around and invest in her and her children. Perhaps a man's sencitivity to a woman's desires, his ability to read her needs, and effort to ensure her sexual satisfaction auger well for his future as a good husband and a good dad." ; "Paternity confidence hypothesis focuses on the signal value her orgasm provides to the partner. It tells the man that she is sexually satisfied with him, and hence will not be motivated to seek sexual gratification elsewhere (...) it increases the likelihhod that he will remain commited to her and invest in her children." ; " Paternity confusion hypothesis, on the context of langur monkeys and macaques, female orgasm evolved to promote promiscuous mating. By promoting paternal uncertainty, a female could reduce the odds that any male in the group might kill her offsoring " ; "Sperm retention hypothesis, female orgasms functions to draw sperm intocervix and uterine cavity, increasing the odds of conception." ; " % ofwomen believe that sex without orgasm can be truly satisfying for the woman. Interestingly 10% more men than women believe that female orgasm is necessary for the full enjoyment , suggesting that it might be a greater preoccupation of men than women."
" In short, Mr. Right hypothesis receives some empirical support, but not in the form originally proposed. "Women are more orgasmic with regular mates who have good genetic quality, as indexed by anatomical measures of symmetry and judgements of physical attractiveness. But if they are having affairs, women preferentially choose affair partners of high genetic quality and then experience more frequent sexual orgasms in the context of their liaisons. For women having affairs, orgasm may facilitate a mating strategy of getting the best of both worlds-investment from one man who provides parenting and resources for the children, and goos genes from another man who provides little investment, but who increases the genetic quality of her children."
Affairs:
"Psichologists have identified 3 distinct attachment styles. Secure attachment style find it easy to get close to others, trust that others will be there for them and tend to form mature, anxiety-free romantic relationships. Those with and avoidant attachment style are uncorfortable with psychological closeness, find it hard to trust others and avoid being dependant on them. Those with anxious/ambivalent attachment style have deep insecurity about wheter or not others really love them.They want to get close to others and merge with a loved one, but feel that others are reluctant to get truly intimate with them. They feel that their desire for togethrtness can scare someone away (..) Secure attachment is unrelated to affairs probability-secure women are neither more nor less likely to have ana ffair. The other two styles are definetlycorrelated with extra-pair sex. Avoident women are less likely to have affairs. Anxious/ambivalent women are more likely to have affair. It´s as thought the thirst for intimacy combined with a fear of abandonment from a primary mate leads them into the arms of other men. "
"We have partial answers to why women have affairs.For women who stay with their primary partners, affairs are likely to serve as "good genes" function: obtaining investment from one man and superior DNA from another. For other women affairs serve as mate switching functions: They give women a boost in self-esteem they need to propel themselves out of one relatioship in their quest for intimacy in another."
Menstrual cycle effect:
"Women in the least fertile phase of their cycle were most attracted to the face that was slightly feminized. In sharp contrast, women in the most fertile phase of their cycle were drawn to the face that was 30 percent maculinized. The end result is that somewhat masculinized faces signal heritable fitness-a healthy immune system that can be passed down to children. In essence wome's preference for maculinized faces at ovulaion reveals a preference for "good genes" that are sometimes better secured from affair partners than from regular mates. Women may find the "good guy" qualities most attractive in regular mates since they indicate the long-term provisoning."
January 11, 2019
Viihdyttävä, mutta heikko informaatioarvo.
Takakansitekstissä esitetään, että kirja perustuu alan laajimpaan tutkimukseen, joka käsittää yli 10 000 kaikenikäistä ihmistä, 37 eri kulttuurista maailmanlaajuisesti. Tämä on täysin harhaanjohtavaa, sillä teos on subjektiivisesti valittu kooste erilaisista tutkimuksista. Tuota laajinta tutkimusta hyödynnettiin valitettavasti erittäin vähän. Valtaosassa siteerattuja tutkimuksia otanta on alle 100 henkilöä ja niissä vastaajina amerikkalaiset yliopistonuoret. Dramatiikkaa tulee ottamalla vertailematonta dataa ei-länsimaalaisilta. Kysymyksenasettelu on tutkimuksissa ollut tutkijalähtöistä ja erittäin ohjailevaa. Luin suomeksi, joten en osaa sanoa miten paljon termeihin on vaikuttanut kääntäminen, mutta oletan että tutkijan käyttämä termi "luuserimies" on vastaavuudeltaan yhtä mitätöivä englanniksi.
Homoseksuaalisuutta koskevat osuudet ovat erityisen hämmentäviä. Teoksessa on viitattu myös taudinaiheuttajateoriaan homoseksuaalisuuden "saamisessa". Mitä voisi ajatella tästä:
"Seksuaalisen suuntautumisen täsmentyminen varhaisessa vaiheessa ennen sukupuolielämän aloittamista rajaisi pois taudinaiheuttajan tarttumisesta sukupuoliteitse, vaikka tällainenkaan ei eliminoisi ei-seksuaalisen tartuntatavan mahdollisuutta."
Buss tekee vaivattomasti yleistyksiä, koska "Jim" on kokenut näin ja koska "eräs kollega" on myös raportoinut omasta yksityiselämästään näin. Laadullisen tutkimuksen osuus on tuttavapiirin kokemuksissa sekä satunnaisissa lainauksissa viihdeteollisuudesta. Mukana on mm. Kun Harry tapasi Sallyn - vuoropuhelu (s. 359 "Voivatko naiset ja miehet olla 'vain ystäviä' ?"). Erityisen hersyvä oli seuraava päätelmä (s. 126 "Seksuaalifantasiat"):
"Tästä voi päätellä, että useimmat miehet fantasioivat seksistä kymmenien eri naisten kanssa, jotka kaikki ovat kauniita ja halukkaita.".
Sitä ei edellä yksikään tutkimus, vaan kirjoittajan kuvaus kolmesta rock-musiikkivideosta joissa mieslaulaja.
Muilta osin tulokset ovat prosenttiosuuksia ja lukumääriä jotka on tarkoitushakuisesti poimittu. Pienet heimot ovat yliedustettuina kirjan esimerkeissä ja yhteiskuntarakenteen huomioiminen päätelmissä jää pahasti kesken.
Teoksessa käytettiin huolettomasti sanoja "arvonaaras" ja "nukkevaimo". Naisen käyttäytymistä kautta linjan selitettiin enemmän epätoivottujen tilanteiden välttämisen kautta ja miehen käyttäytymistä toivottujen tilanteiden rakentamisen kautta, mikä antoi mielenkiintoisen lisämausteen kirjan "juonelle". Nainen näyttää viehättävältä, mies kerää resursseja.
Teoksesta jäi kokonaan puuttumaan osuus ihmisistä, jotka eivät kaipaa pariutumista. Mielestäni pariutumisstrategioita ei voida tarkastella huomioimatta mikä se toinen vaihtoehto olisi.
Varsinaisia tutkimusliitteitä ei mukana ole, lopussa kuitenkin laaja lähdeluettelo.
Takakansitekstissä esitetään, että kirja perustuu alan laajimpaan tutkimukseen, joka käsittää yli 10 000 kaikenikäistä ihmistä, 37 eri kulttuurista maailmanlaajuisesti. Tämä on täysin harhaanjohtavaa, sillä teos on subjektiivisesti valittu kooste erilaisista tutkimuksista. Tuota laajinta tutkimusta hyödynnettiin valitettavasti erittäin vähän. Valtaosassa siteerattuja tutkimuksia otanta on alle 100 henkilöä ja niissä vastaajina amerikkalaiset yliopistonuoret. Dramatiikkaa tulee ottamalla vertailematonta dataa ei-länsimaalaisilta. Kysymyksenasettelu on tutkimuksissa ollut tutkijalähtöistä ja erittäin ohjailevaa. Luin suomeksi, joten en osaa sanoa miten paljon termeihin on vaikuttanut kääntäminen, mutta oletan että tutkijan käyttämä termi "luuserimies" on vastaavuudeltaan yhtä mitätöivä englanniksi.
Homoseksuaalisuutta koskevat osuudet ovat erityisen hämmentäviä. Teoksessa on viitattu myös taudinaiheuttajateoriaan homoseksuaalisuuden "saamisessa". Mitä voisi ajatella tästä:
"Seksuaalisen suuntautumisen täsmentyminen varhaisessa vaiheessa ennen sukupuolielämän aloittamista rajaisi pois taudinaiheuttajan tarttumisesta sukupuoliteitse, vaikka tällainenkaan ei eliminoisi ei-seksuaalisen tartuntatavan mahdollisuutta."
Buss tekee vaivattomasti yleistyksiä, koska "Jim" on kokenut näin ja koska "eräs kollega" on myös raportoinut omasta yksityiselämästään näin. Laadullisen tutkimuksen osuus on tuttavapiirin kokemuksissa sekä satunnaisissa lainauksissa viihdeteollisuudesta. Mukana on mm. Kun Harry tapasi Sallyn - vuoropuhelu (s. 359 "Voivatko naiset ja miehet olla 'vain ystäviä' ?"). Erityisen hersyvä oli seuraava päätelmä (s. 126 "Seksuaalifantasiat"):
"Tästä voi päätellä, että useimmat miehet fantasioivat seksistä kymmenien eri naisten kanssa, jotka kaikki ovat kauniita ja halukkaita.".
Sitä ei edellä yksikään tutkimus, vaan kirjoittajan kuvaus kolmesta rock-musiikkivideosta joissa mieslaulaja.
Muilta osin tulokset ovat prosenttiosuuksia ja lukumääriä jotka on tarkoitushakuisesti poimittu. Pienet heimot ovat yliedustettuina kirjan esimerkeissä ja yhteiskuntarakenteen huomioiminen päätelmissä jää pahasti kesken.
Teoksessa käytettiin huolettomasti sanoja "arvonaaras" ja "nukkevaimo". Naisen käyttäytymistä kautta linjan selitettiin enemmän epätoivottujen tilanteiden välttämisen kautta ja miehen käyttäytymistä toivottujen tilanteiden rakentamisen kautta, mikä antoi mielenkiintoisen lisämausteen kirjan "juonelle". Nainen näyttää viehättävältä, mies kerää resursseja.
Teoksesta jäi kokonaan puuttumaan osuus ihmisistä, jotka eivät kaipaa pariutumista. Mielestäni pariutumisstrategioita ei voida tarkastella huomioimatta mikä se toinen vaihtoehto olisi.
Varsinaisia tutkimusliitteitä ei mukana ole, lopussa kuitenkin laaja lähdeluettelo.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 281 reviews