Consider the following excerpt from a popular publication discussing evolutionary psychology. This section demonstrates significant flaws in its reasoning and fails to accurately represent the complexity of human history.

For instance, evolutionary psychologists assert that males exhibit greater aggression than females due to the competitive nature of securing mates. They argue that men are more inclined toward casual sexual encounters, as it maximizes their reproductive potential, while women are seen as more selective due to the implications of pregnancy and child-rearing.

These sweeping generalizations not only present assumptions as established facts, but they also mistakenly suggest that contemporary behaviors reflect those of our ancestors over millennia, rather than just the last few thousand years. Let’s first examine the claim that men are more open to casual sexual relationships to enhance reproductive success.

It’s crucial to note that the societal context of female sexuality in patriarchal cultures starkly contrasts with that of Paleolithic societies. The stereotype of males as promiscuous and females as choosy reflects outdated Victorian attitudes and questionable research on fruit flies that has been improperly applied to humans.

Historically, women’s selectivity increased with the advent of patriarchy a few thousand years ago. When societal constraints limit a woman’s ability to provide for herself, she is compelled to seek the best possible partner. If a woman’s safety and societal judgment regarding her sexuality are constant concerns, it’s understandable that she might be less inclined toward casual sexual encounters. However, research indicates that when women feel secure and anticipate positive experiences, they can be just as open to casual sex as men. For instance, a 2017 study found that women aged twenty-five to twenty-nine reported participation in group sex and threesomes at rates comparable to men, challenging the stereotype that men are inherently more sexually adventurous.

Primatologist Meredith Small highlights that the pursuit of novelty is a prominent trait among female primates, contradicting the notion that they are merely reluctant breeders or exclusively seeking intimacy with a single mate. This leads to the question: why should we assume that human primates function differently in the absence of restrictive cultural norms?

In fact, female animals that mate with multiple males tend to produce genetically diverse offspring, increasing the likelihood of their survival. True monogamy is rare in nature; even in species known to form pair bonds, females may mate with several males.

When Darwin observed that female animals tended to be coy and males competitive, he inadvertently skewed our understanding of behavior. Modern insights from female primatologists, anthropologists, and sex researchers reveal that under favorable conditions, female sexuality can be assertive, adventurous, and even promiscuous.

The esteemed anthropologist Sarah Hrdy asserts that throughout history, the most successful mothers often engaged in promiscuity to mitigate risks like male infertility, enhance their chances of healthy offspring, and build supportive networks through multiple partnerships.

The concept of a male as a family provider is relatively recent, emerging with the advent of agriculture and intensifying during the Industrial Revolution. For most of human history, men and women contributed equally to communal food sources within egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, where survival depended on collective efforts. In some contemporary hunter-gatherer groups, women are the primary food providers, suggesting that historical patterns may not have differed significantly.

In such social dynamics, the idea of men competing for women becomes questionable. The anatomical structure of the human penis, designed for sperm displacement, indicates that competition occurs post-mating rather than pre-mating, as seen in species like gorillas.

The human female cervix, akin to that of promiscuous macaques that may mate with numerous males, serves not to block sperm but to filter and evaluate it, suggesting a historical propensity for multiple mating.

The patriarchal control over women has made the notion of fighting for female partners seem plausible, yet even in communal cultures, fatherhood is often an irrelevant concept. As noted by Christopher Ryan in "Sex at Dawn," an encounter between a Jesuit missionary and a Montagnais Indian illustrates this cultural difference, where community bonds supersede individual parentage.

In societies like the Mosuo in China, women choose their partners freely without formalizing relationships, living in matriarchal homes where men play supportive roles in raising children. The application of patriarchal norms—only a few thousand years old—to all human history is both simplistic and inaccurate.

Were men always more aggressive than women? While certainty is elusive, evidence suggests that in egalitarian groups, gratuitous violence is not tolerated, as it is maladaptive. Primatologist Frans de Waal observes that group stability and cooperation are favored over disruptive behaviors.

Moreover, the earliest archaeological records of mass violence date back only 13,000 years, with most evidence appearing around 8,000 years ago, suggesting that the social dynamics we observe today are not applicable to all of human history.

Another segment from the same article on evolutionary psychology continues to perpetuate assumptions that conflate contemporary dominance-based cultures with ancient human behavior.

Females are said to prefer taller partners of higher status for protection and provision, while males favor physically attractive partners, viewing features like youth and health as indicators of fertility.

The association of female attractiveness with fertility is questionable, as beauty standards vary significantly across cultures and eras. The idea that youth and health are primarily indicated by facial features is increasingly being challenged, with new research suggesting that body differences may carry more weight.

Recent findings indicate that relying on facial symmetry as a metric for health or intelligence may be ineffective, especially when other cues are more readily available.

Historically, human societies thrived on cooperation, child-rearing through alloparenting, and communal food sharing. Concepts of status and provision hold little relevance in cultures built around collective survival, indicating that one cannot simply project recent social dynamics onto the entirety of human history.

In summary, evolutionary psychology often overlooks the complexities of our past, reducing 5,000 years of dominance-based social structures to a universal model for all humanity. It portrays patriarchy as an inevitable outcome, yet historical evidence suggests a far more diverse tapestry of family, social, and sexual dynamics.

Erroneous beliefs about human nature have been perpetuated over generations, with Bateman's fruit fly conclusions serving as a notable example. Researchers have concluded that human mating strategies likely do not adhere to a single, universal pattern.

While evolutionary psychology offers a tidy framework, it neglects essential information and contemporary scientific understanding, rendering it less effective in explaining human behavior.

© Copyright Elle Beau 2022

Related Articles:

• ‘Males Are Naturally More Promiscuous Than Choosy Females’
• Yes, Our Ancient Ancestors Were Egalitarian
• Pair Bonding Is Ancient; Sexual Exclusivity Is Modern
• ‘Egalitarian’ and ‘Patriarchal’ May Not Mean What You Think They Do