A few years ago there was a massive study on sexuality that found that people were far more monogamous than studies by Kinsey or Masters and Johnson showed. Of course, if you did not dig a little deeper, you'd never know that many of the interviews were conducted with couples, and in that situation, they might be much less likely to divulge any marital indiscretions.

We'll look at three recent studies, with an eye towards methodological flaws and weak protocols:

Monogamy

Up first is a study lead by David Schmitt, an evolutionary psychologist at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. The conclusion, in what is being hailed as a definitive study, is that men are biologically wired for infidelity. Not only that, but men also desire greater variety than women do, reinforcing traditional stereotypes of gender- that men are the hunters always looking for new conquests, while women are more naturally monogamous, seeking the safe comfort of home and family.

Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the study involved 16,288 volunteers from 50 countries in the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia, as well as Australia. Asked how many partners they desired over the next month, men on average said 1.87, while women said 0.78. Men said they wanted 5.95 partners over the next 10 years; women said they wanted 2.17. More than one-quarter of heterosexual men wanted more than one partner in the next month, as did 29.1 percent of gay men and 30.1 percent of bisexual men, the study showed. Only 4.4 percent of heterosexual women, 5.5 percent of lesbians and 15.6 percent of bisexual women sought more than one partner. 

The study is being strongly criticized by those who feel that culture has more influence in shaping behavior than evolutionary psychology. We know for certain that evolution has played a role in behavior, but when it comes to sex, many sociologists and social psychologists believe that differences in sexual fidelity arise because of a double standard in male-dominated societies, where female sexuality is tightly controlled.

Of course, just because you are looking at data does not mean that you understand what the data is telling you. All of these folks would do well to get a grounding in other disciplines, including evolutionary biology, DNA field studies, cultural anthropology, and other areas that might make the picture a little clearer.

The big picture appears to be a lot more interesting. Because cultures tend to be male dominated and because there are property and inheritance rights, inheritance goes beyond simply passing on your genes. Men also hope to pass on their wealth- but only to their children. To make sure that the children are biologically theirs, female sexuality has been tightly controlled. Women always know the possible candidates for fatherhood, but without controlling women, men can be completely in the dark.

Clearly, this would reinforce fidelity in women. So, does this mean that women are more committed to fidelity?

Not necessarily. A man who spreads his seed far and wide, so to speak, has a greater chance of passing on his genes. Clearly, this would reinforce promiscuous behavior. For a man, it can be a commitment of a few minutes. For women, it is a commitment of nine months. But what if the husband has genes that are not up to snuff? What strategy might a female employ to increase the odds of passing on her genes?

Interestingly enough, the answer is not monogamy. In extensive DNA studies of the offspring of both women and animals, we find that it is almost universal for the female of all species to mix it up. In some species that we thought were clearly the most monogamous, DNA studies have shown that they sneak off and mate with others, leaving the father to assume the children are his.

The same is true in the human species, and the one cultural truth is that women have learned to lie about sexual desire. It is an advantage to have men believe in female monogamy, as that increases the likelihood of their sticking around and helping raise the children.

In fact, women tend lie in studies about their sexual fidelity based on how anonymous they believe the research is. Ohio State University psychologist Terri Fisher has done research that shows this pretty clearly.  She gave students points for each yes answer revolving around whether they had recently masturbated, watched hard core porn, or watched soft core porn. Men had scores 2 ½ times higher than women. 

These scores changed dramatically for women when they felt assured of remaining anonymous. In the initial study they handed back responses. In a second study, they placed answers in a locked box supervised by the instructor. Their average score went up several percentage points. When the test was held with them alone in a locked room and putting the answers in a locked box, their average scores more than doubled.

Because of our conflicting attitudes about sex, doing any type of sex research requires those trained in dealing with people's natural inclination to lie about it. Using the same guarantee of anonymity, Fisher also found that women reported their first sexual encounter earlier, and men reported having sex later. 

In the Schmitt study, students took the test together in a classroom, hardly an environment guaranteeing anonymity. This brings up another flaw in the study. It is typical to do this research with college students, since they are so readily available to college based researchers. We all know how much attitudes change between the ages of 18 and 25. A younger sample tends to be a little more sexually conservative, certainly less sexually experienced, and more conforming. How would a young, sexually inexperienced woman with cultural conditioning toward monogamy even know what she wants sexually?

I've known a number of women in swinging where their only sex partner was their husband when they got married. They thought that was the norm. A few years later, and their world view changes dramatically. Now they are enthusiastically having sex with a wide variety of partners. It was not biology, but opportunity that changed for them.
 

Attraction

The old saying that "opposites attract" is obviously far too simplistic, but so too may be the recent results from researchers at Cornell University. They have concluded that people look for spouses who have traits similar to their own.  

The psychology and biochemistry of attraction is an amazingly complex process. I suspect it would be impossible to work out a simple formula to explain it, but the Cornell study does shed a little light on what people think they want in a mate.

The researchers asked 978 Cornell heterosexual male and female students to fill out a two-part questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire required the respondents to rate the importance of 10 different qualities in a potential life partner. The qualities were grouped into four "evolutionarily relevant" categories: wealth and status, family commitment, physical appearance and sexual fidelity. 

In the second part of the questionnaire, the respondents rated their own perceptions of themselves for each of these same attributes.

The results were that students who indicated that a particular attribute was important in a partner tended to rate themselves highly in that same category.   This is contrary to the "parental investment" theory of mate selection, which suggests that people pick partners who possess qualities important to successful child-rearing.

Social science research is often criticized for a lack of scientific vigor, and this certainly has a number of flaws. First and foremost is that the results tell us only about what young people think they want in a mate, rather than what they actually choose. What you imagine you want in a spouse while still in college and the woman or man you wind up actually marrying tends to be quite different.

There are also known biochemical aspects to attraction. These can supply subconscious triggers that effect who we are attracted to. Researchers have shown that the apparent function of these biochemical triggers is to prevent attraction to anyone who is too genetically similar. Mixing it up genetically is the entire key to evolution. 

SUNY psychology professor Arthur Aron notes another methodological problem: Students first rated how important each of the attributes was in a partner. This initial rating may have influenced how they rated themselves.  A good example that struck me right away was the aspect of sexual fidelity. Most people would probably state that this was something important that they wanted in a partner, but how many people would then state that it was unimportant for them? Had the questions been asked in a different order, the results might be different.

Study author Dr. Peter M. Buston of the University of California in Santa Barbara believes that choosing someone as a mate who is similar to you makes good evolutionary sense, because it contributes to the stability of the partnership. Their research, however, only looked at what young unmarrieds desire in a partner instead of looking at any relationship between actual attributes and long term success in marriage. There is a good reason the social sciences are referred to as soft science. The study actually tells us nothing about marriage stability or even anything about what attributes people actually choose in a marriage partner. 

Of course, it is also difficult to even define what we mean by an opposite. Are we talking about personalities or backgrounds or attitudes? Certainly, we would be attracted to someone who has a personality trait that we lack but that we see an advantage in.  If we are poor, we might well be attracted to someone with money. If we don't see ourselves as attractive, we might still be attracted to someone who is beautiful. The opposite, however, is generally not true. The rich don't typically dream about marrying a poor person.

Despite this latest attempt to understand attraction, it still remains largely a mystery. My own theory about who we choose to marry is that we use an additive approach; that we seek those who add to our perceived survival and reproductive success, which is different for each person. Of course, there is also biochemical attraction.  And availability.  And some of the weird psychology that makes some people look for someone with attributes of their mom or dad. Or those who choose exactly the opposite of their mom and dad.  And it might also depend on what you were drinking the night you proposed.  

Buston concludes that "If what people are looking for is a stable, long-term partnership, then they should just be looking for someone who is similar to themselves in many things."  Okay, maybe I'll include a little of that in my theory. And of course, a little of the opposite as well.
 

Sex and Aging

My wife's parents met when her mother was in her early 40's, and her father was a much younger man. Twelve years younger. They had a long marriage, and even with the age difference, he still passed before she did. Now in her 80's, she is still going strong. Perhaps they were simply trend setters. 

That seems to be the case from a recent survey published in AARP on dating patterns for middle aged Americans. Whether it is my wife's parents, or the current relationship between Demi Moore and the much younger Ashton Kutcher, women dating younger men appears to be more common than most people think. The survey found that close to a third of unmarried American woman in their 40s through 60s who date are going out with younger men.

While this may be the most surprising finding of the survey, it probably comes as little surprise that 66 percent of the men were dating younger women. What percentage of those men were dating women young enough to be their daughter as part of a midlife crises was not revealed.

The AARP survey sampled the views of 1,400 men and 2,100 women in the first survey the magazine has done of singles.  It is one of the most sweeping surveys ever conducted on the dating habits and sex lives of midlife singles.

So, if you are in midlife and in the dating pool, what can you expect? Well, the chances of guys getting lucky on the first date are pretty low. Only 2 percent of single women thought that was acceptable. The 2 percent of women who do find it acceptable have much better odds of finding a similarly inclined man, though. Twenty percent of men were amenable to the idea. 

This is certainly in contrast to a recent Internet survey by iMatchup.com. Out of over 60,000 responses representing a younger demographic, 60 percent admit to having had sex on a first date, and more than a third of those report doing so on a regular basis.

That does not mean that sex is out of the picture, though. Only 15 percent of women and 5 percent of men felt it was necessary to wait until marriage. The majority felt that sex was acceptable after several dates or knowing someone for a period of time.

According to the survey, 60 percent of the singles between 40 and 69 are women. That certainly makes for more opportunities for the 46 percent of men who report having sex with more than one person during the same time period, as opposed to just 21 percent for women.

Marriage is not necessarily in the cards either. About a third of both sexes say they are not sure whether they want to get married if they find themselves in a committed, exclusive relationship. As far as cohabitation goes, 34 percent of men and 21 percent of women say they would consider living together. 

The primary flaw with the survey, though, is that it covers too wide an age range. I'm in my 40's and my parents are in their 60's, and we have dramatically different views on sexual matters. They grew up in the very repressive 50's, while I grew up in the much more open 70's. Those two decades are night and day, and the differences in social and sexual attitudes between them are staggering. The 60's changed everything. Cohabiting was not at all acceptable in their time, yet perfectly normal for my generation. 

Overall, the survey does show a more liberal view on sexuality and dating than we might have seen in the past, but I suspect that we would see dramatic differences if things were broken down by decade. For example, 50 percent report having sexual intercourse at least once a week, while only 28 percent report having oral sex at least weekly. I suspect that those having frequent oral sex skew much lower in age. I was also surprised at the very low reported instance of masturbation (21 percent). I would guess that those reporting the most frequency also skew much younger.  While ambitious, ultimately the survey provides only a hazy picture.
 

Conclusion

The quality of sexual research in the social sciences seems to leave out a lot of the science part, typically reinforcing strongly held cultural beliefs.  It is unfortunate that in an area of such importance, there is so much bad science and poor quality research. The worst part is that the general public only hears the headlines, and accepts the conclusions as being far more scientific than they actually are. 
 
 

Previous Commentaries
 

Return to main menu