What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evolution of Human Sexuality
Nature versus nurture - nowhere is the debate more heated than in the areas of sex and sex differences. The Evolution of Human Sexuality adds fuel to the fire. Symons's thesis is that some of the typical differences between men and women in sexual behaviors, attitudes and feelings are innate: identical rearing of males and females will not result in identical sexualities.
Anthropology, Sexual Studies, Psychology, Sociology, Gender and Cultural Studies
Anthropology, Sexual Studies, Psychology, Sociology, Gender and Cultural Studies
368 pages, Paperback
First published August 30, 1979
22 people are currently reading
978 people want to read
About the author
Donald Symons
6 books12 followersDonald Symons (Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley) is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is best known as one of the founders of evolutionary psychology, and for pioneering the study of human sexuality from an evolutionary perspective. He is one of the most cited researchers in contemporary sex research, and his work is referenced by scientists investigating an extremely diverse range of sexual phenomena.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
June 22, 2012
A huge undertaking, but riddled with misconceptions and ideology. The unwarranted personal attack on Sherfey fits with the agenda of the evolutionary psychology zealots to ridicule anyone who dares dissent. A triumph of misogyny.
October 27, 2025
Research in evolutionary psychology has focused disproportionately on mating behaviour. Indeed, Miller contends it is the theory of sexual selection, not natural selection, which guides most research (Miller 1998).
This does not reflect only the prurience of researchers. Reproductive success is the ultimate currency of natural selection. Thus, mating behavior is among the behaviors most directly subject to selection.
Almost all this research traces its ancestry to ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’ by Donald Symons. Indeed, much was designed to test theories originally formulated in this book.
For example, Symons speculated that, since human mating is characterized by long-term relationships, a female would be maximally attractive, not at her age of peak fertility, but at her peak reproductive value—i.e. at the beginning of her reproductive career, such that, by entering a long-term relationship, a male is able to monopolise her entire lifetime reproductive output (p189).
Later research confirmed Symons’ intuition (Kenrick and Keefe 1992).
Support has even emerged for Symons’ speculative hunches. Thus, Symons speculated that concealed ovulation might have evolved to impede male mate-guarding and enable women to select a biological father for their offspring different from their partner (p139-141).
Studies have indeed found that female mate preferences vary on a cyclical basis consistent with this theory (e.g. Penton-Voak et al 1999) and that women engage in extra-pair copulations at times likely to coincide with ovulation (Bellis & Baker 1990).
Symons even anticipated later errors in evolutionary psychology.
Thus, he warns that researchers may overestimate the importance of female choice as a factor in human mating, due to current western practices (p203).
But historically and cross-culturally, arranged marriages were the norm (p168).
Symons concludes:
Homosexuality as Test-Case
An idea of the importance of Symons’s work can be ascertained by comparing it with contemporaneous works. Wilson’s On Human Nature was published only a year before ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’, but Wilson’s chapter on sex is dated and much of the chapter is devoted to introducing a now faintly embarrassing theory of homosexuality.
In contrast, Symons’s treatment of homosexuality is innovative. He does not concern himself with how homosexuality evolved, implicitly viewing it as a maladaptive malfunctioning of sexuality. But he uses homosexual behavior as a window on the nature of male and female sexuality as they manifest themselves when freed from the constraints imposed by the conflicting desires of the opposite sex.
Thus, the extreme promiscuity of many gay men reflects the universal male desire for sexual variety when freed from the constraints imposed by the conflicting desires of women—a desire that, though obviously reproductively unproductive among homosexuals, evolved because it enhanced the reproductive success of heterosexual men by motivating them to copulate with multiple females.
In contrast, women, burdened by pregnancy and lactation, have little to gain by promiscuity, since they can usually gestate and nurse only one offspring at a time.
It is thus interesting that lesbian relationships are similar to those of heterosexuals, being characterized by long-term pair-bonds.
This suggests, contrary to feminist dogma, that women exert decisive influence in dictating the terms of heterosexual coupling.
Symons’s use of homosexual behavior as a window on the nature of male and female sexuality rests on a questionable premise—namely that homosexuals are, their preference for same-sex partners aside, otherwise identical to heterosexuals of their own sex in their psychology and sexuality.
Thus, he notes that, unlike women, both gay and straight men evaluate prospective mates primarily on the basis of physical appearance and youthfulness (p295), and notes the similarities between gay and straight porn (p301).
In contrast, magazines featuring male nudes have failed attract a female audience, and nor do lesbians buy Playboy (p174-5).
The similarities between gay and straight porn contradicts the feminist notion that men only enjoy such material due to the objectification of women in the media:
Buller cites evidence that gay men are in some respects feminized in aspects of their behavior. Gender non-conformity during childhood correlates with adult homosexual orientation and some evidence (e.g. the fraternal birth order effect) suggests that levels exposure to androgens (e.g. testosterone) in utero affects sexual orientation (see Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation).
Buller notes, although gay porn stars tend to be young, they are also quite masculine.
One possible explanation for this anomaly is that some parts of gay male brains are feminized but not others because different parts of the brain are formed at different stages of prenatal development, when androgen levels vary.
Indeed, gay men may be hyper-masculinized in some respects, because:
Alternatively, perhaps gay men lie midway between heterosexual men and women in their level of masculinization.
Thus, they appear feminine only compared to other men. Compared to women, they may be quite masculine, as reflected in the male-typical aspects of their sexuality discussed by Symons.
This suggests the disturbing possibility that, freed from the restraints imposed by women, heterosexual men might be even more indiscriminately promiscuous than their gay counterparts.
Porn as a Natural Experiment
Fantasy is another window onto sexuality that is unconstrained by the conflicting desires of the opposite sex. Symons investigates fantasy indirectly by focusing on “the natural experiment of commercial periodical publishing”—i.e. nudie mags (p182).
Before the internet age, such publications commanded sizeable circulations despite the stigma attached to their purchase. Their audience was wholly male.
In contrast, women’s magazines contain, mostly, pictures of other women, and magazines featuring male nudes, even those ostensibly marketed to women (e.g. Playgirl), sold mostly to gay men.
Symons concludes:
Taken to its extreme, it has even been used to justify rape—i.e. the absurd notion that women ‘want it really’, but are just too repressed to admit as much.
Romance Literature
Yet Symons neglects to identify any female analogue to porn. Others have argued that romance novels fill this niche, offering insights into female sexuality analogous to those porn provides for males (e.g. Kruger et al 2003; Salmon 2004; Warrior Lovers).
Yet, while feminists campaign against porn because it creates unrealistic expectations of women, there is no similar campaign against romance novels for creating unrealistic expectations of men.
Female Orgasm as Non-Adaptive
Another chapter is devoted to critiquing the notion that the female orgasm is an adaptation.
This contradicts the claim of Stephen Jay Gould that evolutionary psychologists like Symons invariably view all behaviours as adaptations.
Instead, Symons argues that the female orgasm is a non-adaptive by-product of the male orgasm, which is itself obviously adaptive. Thus, female orgasms are the female equivalent of male nipples (only more fun!).
Yet later evolutionary psychologists have developed more sophisticated theories of the adaptive function of female orgasms.
Miller argues that the female orgasm functions as an adaptation for mate choice (The Mating Mind:p239-241).
Of course, experiencing orgasm during coitus may seem a bit late to exercise mate choice, as, by this time, the choice has already been made.
But, since, in humans, most intercourse does not result in offspring, the theory is not wholly implausible.
On this view, the very factors which Symons views as suggesting female orgasm is non-adaptive (e.g. the difficultly of stimulating female orgasm during vaginal sex) are positive evidence of its adaptive function in carefully discriminating among lovers.
But, according to the criteria set out by Williams in Adaptation and Natural Selection, as well as the more general principle of parsimony, the case for female orgasm as adaptation remains unproven (see Case of the Female Orgasm; and discussion here).
Cynicism
Much of Symons’ work involves critiquing the views of then-influential ethologist, Desmond Morris in The Naked Ape (reviewed here). In place of Morris’s idyllic vision of humans as a naturally monogamous pair-bonding species like gibbons, Symons advocates a cynical approach rooted in the individual- or gene-level selection championed by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (reviewed here).
This leads Symons to some cynical conclusions.
Thus, he argues marriage is an institution borne, not of love, nor even lust, but rather of male sexual jealousy and mate-guarding (p123)—and, in his chapter on ‘Copulation as a Female Service’, suggests that conventional heterosexual coupling is, in some ways, analogous to prostitution.
Outdated?
Published over forty years ago, ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’ is dated.
There is now a vast body of research on the sociobiology of human mating, much of it testing hypotheses first formulated in Symons’s book. The extent to which Symon’s book is outdated is thus testament to the success of the research project he helped inspire.
For the latest research on the evolutionary psychology of human mating, I recommend the latest edition of David Buss’s The Evolution Of Desire.
In contrast, lacking this data, Symons relied instead on literary allusions and a review of the ethnographic literature.
However, this latter element ensures that the work remains of more than merely of historical value, for one of the more legitimate criticisms of recent research in evolutionary psychology is that it overly relies on convenience samples of ‘WEIRD’ western undergraduates. For a field that aspires to uncover a psychology presumed to be universal, this is problematic.
Full review here.
References
Bellis & Baker 1990 Do females promote sperm competition? Anim Behav 40:997-999
Bogaert & Hershberger 1999 The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behav 28(3):213-21
Ellis & Symons 1990 Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy Journal of Sex Research 27 (4): 527-555
Kenrick & Keefe 1992 Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies'. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15:75-133
Kruger et al 2003 Proper and Dark Heroes as Dads and Cads. Human Nature 14(3):305-317
Miller 1998 How mate choice shaped human nature. In Crawford & Krebs (Eds.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 87-129)
Penton-Voak et al 1999 Menstrual cycle alters face preferences Nature 399:741-2
Puts 2010 Beauty and the Beast, Evolution and Human Behav 31:157-175
Salmon (2004) The Pornography Debate In Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions
This does not reflect only the prurience of researchers. Reproductive success is the ultimate currency of natural selection. Thus, mating behavior is among the behaviors most directly subject to selection.
Almost all this research traces its ancestry to ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’ by Donald Symons. Indeed, much was designed to test theories originally formulated in this book.
For example, Symons speculated that, since human mating is characterized by long-term relationships, a female would be maximally attractive, not at her age of peak fertility, but at her peak reproductive value—i.e. at the beginning of her reproductive career, such that, by entering a long-term relationship, a male is able to monopolise her entire lifetime reproductive output (p189).
Later research confirmed Symons’ intuition (Kenrick and Keefe 1992).
Support has even emerged for Symons’ speculative hunches. Thus, Symons speculated that concealed ovulation might have evolved to impede male mate-guarding and enable women to select a biological father for their offspring different from their partner (p139-141).
Studies have indeed found that female mate preferences vary on a cyclical basis consistent with this theory (e.g. Penton-Voak et al 1999) and that women engage in extra-pair copulations at times likely to coincide with ovulation (Bellis & Baker 1990).
Symons even anticipated later errors in evolutionary psychology.
Thus, he warns that researchers may overestimate the importance of female choice as a factor in human mating, due to current western practices (p203).
But historically and cross-culturally, arranged marriages were the norm (p168).
Symons concludes:
“There is no evidence that any features of human anatomy were produced by intersexual selection [i.e. female choice]. Human physical sex differences are explained most parsimoniously as the outcome of intrasexual selection (the result of male-male competition)” (p203).Thus, human males have no obvious analogue of the peacock’s tail, but we do have much greater levels of upper-body strength and violent aggression as compared to females (Puts 2010).
Homosexuality as Test-Case
An idea of the importance of Symons’s work can be ascertained by comparing it with contemporaneous works. Wilson’s On Human Nature was published only a year before ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’, but Wilson’s chapter on sex is dated and much of the chapter is devoted to introducing a now faintly embarrassing theory of homosexuality.
In contrast, Symons’s treatment of homosexuality is innovative. He does not concern himself with how homosexuality evolved, implicitly viewing it as a maladaptive malfunctioning of sexuality. But he uses homosexual behavior as a window on the nature of male and female sexuality as they manifest themselves when freed from the constraints imposed by the conflicting desires of the opposite sex.
Thus, the extreme promiscuity of many gay men reflects the universal male desire for sexual variety when freed from the constraints imposed by the conflicting desires of women—a desire that, though obviously reproductively unproductive among homosexuals, evolved because it enhanced the reproductive success of heterosexual men by motivating them to copulate with multiple females.
In contrast, women, burdened by pregnancy and lactation, have little to gain by promiscuity, since they can usually gestate and nurse only one offspring at a time.
It is thus interesting that lesbian relationships are similar to those of heterosexuals, being characterized by long-term pair-bonds.
This suggests, contrary to feminist dogma, that women exert decisive influence in dictating the terms of heterosexual coupling.
“There is enormous cross-cultural variation in sexual customs and laws... yet nowhere in the world do heterosexual relations begin to approximate those typical of homosexual men… This suggests that… heterosexual relations are structured to a substantial degree by the nature and interests of the human female” (p300)It also suggests that most men are sexually frustrated.
“The desire for sexual variety dooms most human males to a lifetime of unfulfilled longing” (p228).Here, Symons anticipates Camille Paglia’s description of men as:
“Sexual exiles who wander the earth seeking satisfaction, craving and despising, never content. There is nothing in that anguished motion for women to envy” (Sexual Personae: p19).Homosexuality as a Test-Case: Criticisms
Symons’s use of homosexual behavior as a window on the nature of male and female sexuality rests on a questionable premise—namely that homosexuals are, their preference for same-sex partners aside, otherwise identical to heterosexuals of their own sex in their psychology and sexuality.
“There is no reason to suppose that homosexuals differ systematically from heterosexuals in any way other than their sexual object choice” (p292).Indeed, in some respects, Symons sees even “sexual object choice” as similar among homosexuals and heterosexuals of the same sex.
Thus, he notes that, unlike women, both gay and straight men evaluate prospective mates primarily on the basis of physical appearance and youthfulness (p295), and notes the similarities between gay and straight porn (p301).
In contrast, magazines featuring male nudes have failed attract a female audience, and nor do lesbians buy Playboy (p174-5).
The similarities between gay and straight porn contradicts the feminist notion that men only enjoy such material due to the objectification of women in the media:
“Pictures of attractive women are used to sell products because these pictures appeal to men (and perhaps women as well), not the other way around… That homosexual men are at least as likely as heterosexual men to be interested in pornography, cosmetic qualities and youth seems to me to imply that these interests are no more the result of advertising than adultery and alcohol consumption are the result of country and western music” (p304).Yet this assumption of the fundamental similarity of heterosexual and homosexual male psychology has been challenged by Buller in Adapting Minds.
Buller cites evidence that gay men are in some respects feminized in aspects of their behavior. Gender non-conformity during childhood correlates with adult homosexual orientation and some evidence (e.g. the fraternal birth order effect) suggests that levels exposure to androgens (e.g. testosterone) in utero affects sexual orientation (see Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation).
Buller notes, although gay porn stars tend to be young, they are also quite masculine.
“The males featured in gay men's magazines embody very masculine, muscular physiques, not pseudo-feminine physiques” (Adapting Minds: p227).Indeed, models in gay porn resemble the heartthrobs fawned over by heterosexual females.
One possible explanation for this anomaly is that some parts of gay male brains are feminized but not others because different parts of the brain are formed at different stages of prenatal development, when androgen levels vary.
Indeed, gay men may be hyper-masculinized in some respects, because:
“If it is supposed that the barriers against androgens with respect to certain brain structures (notably those concerned with homosexuality) lead to increased secretion in an effort to break through, or some sort of accumulation elsewhere… then there may be excess testosterone left in other departments” (Born Gay: p80)Thus, one study reported larger penises among gay men (Bogaert & Hershberger 1999).
Alternatively, perhaps gay men lie midway between heterosexual men and women in their level of masculinization.
Thus, they appear feminine only compared to other men. Compared to women, they may be quite masculine, as reflected in the male-typical aspects of their sexuality discussed by Symons.
This suggests the disturbing possibility that, freed from the restraints imposed by women, heterosexual men might be even more indiscriminately promiscuous than their gay counterparts.
Porn as a Natural Experiment
Fantasy is another window onto sexuality that is unconstrained by the conflicting desires of the opposite sex. Symons investigates fantasy indirectly by focusing on “the natural experiment of commercial periodical publishing”—i.e. nudie mags (p182).
Before the internet age, such publications commanded sizeable circulations despite the stigma attached to their purchase. Their audience was wholly male.
In contrast, women’s magazines contain, mostly, pictures of other women, and magazines featuring male nudes, even those ostensibly marketed to women (e.g. Playgirl), sold mostly to gay men.
Symons concludes:
“The notion must be abandoned that women are simply repressed men waiting to be liberated” (p183).Though embraced by many feminists, this view—that women are “repressed men waiting to be liberated”—is, of course, a quintessentially male one.
Taken to its extreme, it has even been used to justify rape—i.e. the absurd notion that women ‘want it really’, but are just too repressed to admit as much.
Romance Literature
Yet Symons neglects to identify any female analogue to porn. Others have argued that romance novels fill this niche, offering insights into female sexuality analogous to those porn provides for males (e.g. Kruger et al 2003; Salmon 2004; Warrior Lovers).
Yet, while feminists campaign against porn because it creates unrealistic expectations of women, there is no similar campaign against romance novels for creating unrealistic expectations of men.
Female Orgasm as Non-Adaptive
Another chapter is devoted to critiquing the notion that the female orgasm is an adaptation.
This contradicts the claim of Stephen Jay Gould that evolutionary psychologists like Symons invariably view all behaviours as adaptations.
Instead, Symons argues that the female orgasm is a non-adaptive by-product of the male orgasm, which is itself obviously adaptive. Thus, female orgasms are the female equivalent of male nipples (only more fun!).
Yet later evolutionary psychologists have developed more sophisticated theories of the adaptive function of female orgasms.
Miller argues that the female orgasm functions as an adaptation for mate choice (The Mating Mind:p239-241).
Of course, experiencing orgasm during coitus may seem a bit late to exercise mate choice, as, by this time, the choice has already been made.
But, since, in humans, most intercourse does not result in offspring, the theory is not wholly implausible.
On this view, the very factors which Symons views as suggesting female orgasm is non-adaptive (e.g. the difficultly of stimulating female orgasm during vaginal sex) are positive evidence of its adaptive function in carefully discriminating among lovers.
But, according to the criteria set out by Williams in Adaptation and Natural Selection, as well as the more general principle of parsimony, the case for female orgasm as adaptation remains unproven (see Case of the Female Orgasm; and discussion here).
Cynicism
Much of Symons’ work involves critiquing the views of then-influential ethologist, Desmond Morris in The Naked Ape (reviewed here). In place of Morris’s idyllic vision of humans as a naturally monogamous pair-bonding species like gibbons, Symons advocates a cynical approach rooted in the individual- or gene-level selection championed by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (reviewed here).
This leads Symons to some cynical conclusions.
Thus, he argues marriage is an institution borne, not of love, nor even lust, but rather of male sexual jealousy and mate-guarding (p123)—and, in his chapter on ‘Copulation as a Female Service’, suggests that conventional heterosexual coupling is, in some ways, analogous to prostitution.
Outdated?
Published over forty years ago, ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’ is dated.
There is now a vast body of research on the sociobiology of human mating, much of it testing hypotheses first formulated in Symons’s book. The extent to which Symon’s book is outdated is thus testament to the success of the research project he helped inspire.
For the latest research on the evolutionary psychology of human mating, I recommend the latest edition of David Buss’s The Evolution Of Desire.
In contrast, lacking this data, Symons relied instead on literary allusions and a review of the ethnographic literature.
However, this latter element ensures that the work remains of more than merely of historical value, for one of the more legitimate criticisms of recent research in evolutionary psychology is that it overly relies on convenience samples of ‘WEIRD’ western undergraduates. For a field that aspires to uncover a psychology presumed to be universal, this is problematic.
Full review here.
References
Bellis & Baker 1990 Do females promote sperm competition? Anim Behav 40:997-999
Bogaert & Hershberger 1999 The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behav 28(3):213-21
Ellis & Symons 1990 Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy Journal of Sex Research 27 (4): 527-555
Kenrick & Keefe 1992 Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies'. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15:75-133
Kruger et al 2003 Proper and Dark Heroes as Dads and Cads. Human Nature 14(3):305-317
Miller 1998 How mate choice shaped human nature. In Crawford & Krebs (Eds.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 87-129)
Penton-Voak et al 1999 Menstrual cycle alters face preferences Nature 399:741-2
Puts 2010 Beauty and the Beast, Evolution and Human Behav 31:157-175
Salmon (2004) The Pornography Debate In Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions
March 6, 2020
My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.
July 17, 2025
The Evolution of Human Sexuality, by Donald Symons, uses sociobiology to understand why humans behave sexually as we do. Sociobiology is the study of the instinctive behavior of all animals, especially humans.
Symons’ main thesis throughout his book is that female and male human sexuality tends to be different in important ways, and that these differences are not due to social conditioning, but human instincts. The most important difference is probably that most women do not enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Most men do enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Nevertheless, some women do enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Some men, including me, do not.
The reason for the difference is that a woman can only have comparatively few children. If a woman has sex with many men, she will probably not find one of them who will help her raise her children. She may be disowned and even killed by her male relatives. Thay call that “honor killing.”
On the other hand, if a man impregnates many women, and refuses to support any of the children they have with him, he can expect some of the children to survive.
A woman wants to get married to what sociobiologists call “the fittest available man.” Ideally, she wants a tall, handsome Rhodes Scholar who wins an Olympic Gold Medal in something, and a Nobel Prize in something else. If a paragon like that will not marry her, she is best off settling for an average man with an average job who will treat her and the children they have together well.
Men have little interest in the status of a women, but they prefer young women. This is because women in the late teens and twenties are best able to give birth to healthy babies. Even when a man does not want to have children, he prefers young women. Human sexuality is ignorant of birth control and abortion, but it has evolved in response to pregnancy.
Symons has an interesting chapter about male homosexuals and lesbians. Male homosexuals are attracted to men, but they are attracted to men the way heterosexual men are attracted to women: they prefer young men; they like having sex with lots of them.
Lesbians, on the other hand are not promiscuous. They like to pair off with other lesbians they love and trust and often stay with them for life.
My chief objection to this book is that Symons spends too much time describing the sexual practices of Paleolithic tribes that may consist of only a few thousand people, when he should be devoting more time discussing how people in major civilizations behave. Our sexual behavior seems to be more successful, because civilizations, which began independently in various parts of the world, have spread throughout the world.
Fo example, words “virginity” and “virgin” appear nowhere in this book.
Beyond the Male Myth was written by Anthony Pietropinto, M.D. and Jacqueline Simenauer. It was published in 1977. In the United States the 1970’s were the high point, or the low point – depending on your attitude – of the sexual revolution. Since then, there has been more awareness that male sexuality is frequently exploitive and violent. This book was based on a survey given to 4,066 men, and which asked them forty questions.
On page 290 we find: “One-third of men today still want to marry a virgin…Only 2 percent would want to marry a woman who had engaged in sexual relations with many men…”
“Older men were much more likely to value virginity in a wife.”
Of course, there are probably some men who think that a woman who remains a virgin in her twenties and thirties has a low sex drive and won’t be much fun as a wife.
In Muslim Arab countries men usually insist on pre martial virginity and post marital chastity in women. Women who fail to live up to these standards are often the victims of honor killings, even if they were raped.
I have read that in China, Korea, and Japan many men also prefer virgins. I wish there was more recent data on this.
An important area where human tendencies that evolved in the past are dangerous now is war. Until the First World War a country that won a war could usually win benefits that exceeded the human and financial costs of fighting. Those victorious in war won land to settle in and grow crops in. They won natural resources they could mine and drill. They won captive populations they could tax or enslave. Countries that won the First World War were worse off after winning than before they started fighting. The North Vietnamese won the War in Vietnam, but at the cost of having their cities destroyed and several hundred thousand people killed.
In his Memoirs President Eisenhower wrote that his advisors told him that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese, in the North and in the South supported Ho Chi Minh. If Ho had ruled as a Social Democrat, rather than as a Communist he could have probably united Vietnam without a war.
If Russia wins its war with Ukraine, it will win a bombed out country full of people who hate Russia. Meanwhile the Russian economy is crippled. If Vladimir Putin had ruled the Russian Federation well, the Ukrainians would have wanted to join.
Symons’ main thesis throughout his book is that female and male human sexuality tends to be different in important ways, and that these differences are not due to social conditioning, but human instincts. The most important difference is probably that most women do not enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Most men do enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Nevertheless, some women do enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Some men, including me, do not.
The reason for the difference is that a woman can only have comparatively few children. If a woman has sex with many men, she will probably not find one of them who will help her raise her children. She may be disowned and even killed by her male relatives. Thay call that “honor killing.”
On the other hand, if a man impregnates many women, and refuses to support any of the children they have with him, he can expect some of the children to survive.
A woman wants to get married to what sociobiologists call “the fittest available man.” Ideally, she wants a tall, handsome Rhodes Scholar who wins an Olympic Gold Medal in something, and a Nobel Prize in something else. If a paragon like that will not marry her, she is best off settling for an average man with an average job who will treat her and the children they have together well.
Men have little interest in the status of a women, but they prefer young women. This is because women in the late teens and twenties are best able to give birth to healthy babies. Even when a man does not want to have children, he prefers young women. Human sexuality is ignorant of birth control and abortion, but it has evolved in response to pregnancy.
Symons has an interesting chapter about male homosexuals and lesbians. Male homosexuals are attracted to men, but they are attracted to men the way heterosexual men are attracted to women: they prefer young men; they like having sex with lots of them.
Lesbians, on the other hand are not promiscuous. They like to pair off with other lesbians they love and trust and often stay with them for life.
My chief objection to this book is that Symons spends too much time describing the sexual practices of Paleolithic tribes that may consist of only a few thousand people, when he should be devoting more time discussing how people in major civilizations behave. Our sexual behavior seems to be more successful, because civilizations, which began independently in various parts of the world, have spread throughout the world.
Fo example, words “virginity” and “virgin” appear nowhere in this book.
Beyond the Male Myth was written by Anthony Pietropinto, M.D. and Jacqueline Simenauer. It was published in 1977. In the United States the 1970’s were the high point, or the low point – depending on your attitude – of the sexual revolution. Since then, there has been more awareness that male sexuality is frequently exploitive and violent. This book was based on a survey given to 4,066 men, and which asked them forty questions.
On page 290 we find: “One-third of men today still want to marry a virgin…Only 2 percent would want to marry a woman who had engaged in sexual relations with many men…”
“Older men were much more likely to value virginity in a wife.”
Of course, there are probably some men who think that a woman who remains a virgin in her twenties and thirties has a low sex drive and won’t be much fun as a wife.
In Muslim Arab countries men usually insist on pre martial virginity and post marital chastity in women. Women who fail to live up to these standards are often the victims of honor killings, even if they were raped.
I have read that in China, Korea, and Japan many men also prefer virgins. I wish there was more recent data on this.
An important area where human tendencies that evolved in the past are dangerous now is war. Until the First World War a country that won a war could usually win benefits that exceeded the human and financial costs of fighting. Those victorious in war won land to settle in and grow crops in. They won natural resources they could mine and drill. They won captive populations they could tax or enslave. Countries that won the First World War were worse off after winning than before they started fighting. The North Vietnamese won the War in Vietnam, but at the cost of having their cities destroyed and several hundred thousand people killed.
In his Memoirs President Eisenhower wrote that his advisors told him that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese, in the North and in the South supported Ho Chi Minh. If Ho had ruled as a Social Democrat, rather than as a Communist he could have probably united Vietnam without a war.
If Russia wins its war with Ukraine, it will win a bombed out country full of people who hate Russia. Meanwhile the Russian economy is crippled. If Vladimir Putin had ruled the Russian Federation well, the Ukrainians would have wanted to join.
September 3, 2024
THE INFLUENTIAL 1978 APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN GENDER DIFFERENCES,\
Donald Symons (born 1942) is an anthropologist who is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Anthropology at UC Santa Barbara. He also wrote/cowrote 'Warrior Lovers: Erotic Fiction,' 'Evolution and Female Sexuality' and 'Play and Aggression a Study of Rhesus Monkeys.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1979 book, "in 1968 [Richard] Dawkins was an Assistant Professor of Zoology, and I was a graduate student in anthropology... It had occurred to me that men tend to want a variety of sexual partners and women tend not to because this desire was always adaptive for ancestral males and never was adaptive for ancestral females. Dawkins said he had reached the same conclusion... which buoyed me up considerably. This simple notion seemed to explain so much that as my knowledge of the literature on human sexuality grew I continued to ask myself whether new information made adaptive sense... Although this book is about sex and about sex differences, it is not about sex roles... my discussion of sex differences in sexuality is not intended to have social policy implications." (Pg. vi)
He states, "I shall argue that in considering the evolution of human male-female differences in sexual desires and dispositions... The enormous sex differences in minimum parental investment and in reproductive opportunities and constraints explain why Homo sapiens, a species with only moderate sex differences in structure, exhibits profound differences in psyche." (Pg. 27)
He summarizes the primary male-female differences in sexuality among humans as follows: "(1) Intrasexual competition generally is much more intense among males than among females... (2) men incline to polygyny... (3)... men experience sexual jealousy of their mates... (4) men are much more likely to be sexually aroused by the sight of women ... (5) physical characteristics... that correlate with youth, are by far the most important determinants of women's sexual attractiveness... (6)... men are predisposed to desire a variety of sex partners for the sake of variety. (7)... copulation is considered to be essentially a service or favor that women render to men..." (Pg. 27-28)
He suggests, "if natural selection is for reproductive success, not happiness, and society ultimately is a human product, human sexuality may be adapted, not to promote marriage, but to promote reproductive success in a marital environment. Perhaps the affection that sometimes develops among older, long-married couples ... requires so many years to ripen because it is made possible by the waning of sexual conflict." (Pg. 127)
He contends, "I am suggesting that heterosexual men would be as likely as homosexual men to have sex most often with strangers, to participate in anonymous orgies in public baths... on the way home from work if women were interested in these activities. But women are not interested." (Pg. 300) He argues, "it would be inaccurate to infer that a furious, cuckolded husband only imagines himself to be angry at his wife's sexual peccadilloes when... what he is 'really' doing is promoting the survival of his genes... sexual jealousy is real; this jealousy may or may not affect reproductive success... an evolutionary explanation of why males tend to be sexually jealous has no implications for the question of how 'free' they are to act or not to act jealously." (Pg. 307)
Symons' book will be of interest to those interested in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, speculative evolutionary theory, and similar fields of interest.
Donald Symons (born 1942) is an anthropologist who is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Anthropology at UC Santa Barbara. He also wrote/cowrote 'Warrior Lovers: Erotic Fiction,' 'Evolution and Female Sexuality' and 'Play and Aggression a Study of Rhesus Monkeys.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1979 book, "in 1968 [Richard] Dawkins was an Assistant Professor of Zoology, and I was a graduate student in anthropology... It had occurred to me that men tend to want a variety of sexual partners and women tend not to because this desire was always adaptive for ancestral males and never was adaptive for ancestral females. Dawkins said he had reached the same conclusion... which buoyed me up considerably. This simple notion seemed to explain so much that as my knowledge of the literature on human sexuality grew I continued to ask myself whether new information made adaptive sense... Although this book is about sex and about sex differences, it is not about sex roles... my discussion of sex differences in sexuality is not intended to have social policy implications." (Pg. vi)
He states, "I shall argue that in considering the evolution of human male-female differences in sexual desires and dispositions... The enormous sex differences in minimum parental investment and in reproductive opportunities and constraints explain why Homo sapiens, a species with only moderate sex differences in structure, exhibits profound differences in psyche." (Pg. 27)
He summarizes the primary male-female differences in sexuality among humans as follows: "(1) Intrasexual competition generally is much more intense among males than among females... (2) men incline to polygyny... (3)... men experience sexual jealousy of their mates... (4) men are much more likely to be sexually aroused by the sight of women ... (5) physical characteristics... that correlate with youth, are by far the most important determinants of women's sexual attractiveness... (6)... men are predisposed to desire a variety of sex partners for the sake of variety. (7)... copulation is considered to be essentially a service or favor that women render to men..." (Pg. 27-28)
He suggests, "if natural selection is for reproductive success, not happiness, and society ultimately is a human product, human sexuality may be adapted, not to promote marriage, but to promote reproductive success in a marital environment. Perhaps the affection that sometimes develops among older, long-married couples ... requires so many years to ripen because it is made possible by the waning of sexual conflict." (Pg. 127)
He contends, "I am suggesting that heterosexual men would be as likely as homosexual men to have sex most often with strangers, to participate in anonymous orgies in public baths... on the way home from work if women were interested in these activities. But women are not interested." (Pg. 300) He argues, "it would be inaccurate to infer that a furious, cuckolded husband only imagines himself to be angry at his wife's sexual peccadilloes when... what he is 'really' doing is promoting the survival of his genes... sexual jealousy is real; this jealousy may or may not affect reproductive success... an evolutionary explanation of why males tend to be sexually jealous has no implications for the question of how 'free' they are to act or not to act jealously." (Pg. 307)
Symons' book will be of interest to those interested in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, speculative evolutionary theory, and similar fields of interest.
December 10, 2025
This cocksucking hack invented the byproduct theory of female orgasm — that it has no evolutionary purpose despite the flood of oxytocin that comes with orgasm and not without it.
That some males see reward for female reproductive behavior with attentive mates as useless sickens me. Perhaps it is his way of coping with a tiny dick and failure to please a single woman ever.
I had no libido and could not bond or maintain a relationship with a single guy after a surgeon damaged my clitoris until I got toys that could help me still be able to orgasm so his dismissal of the importance of female pleasure and orgasm is especially infuriating to me.
Symons dehumanizing narrative about female sexuality is an affront to the dignity of all women.
He also can’t do math. He is a devout member of The Church of Infinite Sperm and Always Virgin Always Ovulating Women.
All his assumptions regarding the limits of male fertility and female conception possibility are delusional. This guy has 0 respect for scientific evidence and merely peddles chauvinistic wank fodder in the name of science.
This whole book is just Symons thinking with his dick. He was probably jacking off the whole way through and that’s why it’s so irrational. Or maybe he’s just gayer than a bag of dicks.
That some males see reward for female reproductive behavior with attentive mates as useless sickens me. Perhaps it is his way of coping with a tiny dick and failure to please a single woman ever.
I had no libido and could not bond or maintain a relationship with a single guy after a surgeon damaged my clitoris until I got toys that could help me still be able to orgasm so his dismissal of the importance of female pleasure and orgasm is especially infuriating to me.
Symons dehumanizing narrative about female sexuality is an affront to the dignity of all women.
He also can’t do math. He is a devout member of The Church of Infinite Sperm and Always Virgin Always Ovulating Women.
All his assumptions regarding the limits of male fertility and female conception possibility are delusional. This guy has 0 respect for scientific evidence and merely peddles chauvinistic wank fodder in the name of science.
This whole book is just Symons thinking with his dick. He was probably jacking off the whole way through and that’s why it’s so irrational. Or maybe he’s just gayer than a bag of dicks.
April 22, 2024
Lifechanging
Want to read
May 31, 2013There appear to be a staggering amount of misconceptions about evolutionary psychology, most of which come from deep-set prejudices- for instance, the naturalistic fallacy.
Hopefully the present volume is a more balanced treatment than what seems to appear here, though the particular objection by Wilson, et al. on ethical grounds there is as shoddy as ever, discounting as it does the primacy of will and falling back on an essentially utilitarian position to deny their fallacious reasoning.
Schopenhauer is very interesting to hear from regarding relationships and gender dynamics- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R8NNL...
Hopefully the present volume is a more balanced treatment than what seems to appear here, though the particular objection by Wilson, et al. on ethical grounds there is as shoddy as ever, discounting as it does the primacy of will and falling back on an essentially utilitarian position to deny their fallacious reasoning.
Schopenhauer is very interesting to hear from regarding relationships and gender dynamics- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R8NNL...
January 6, 2013
One of the most fascinating science books I've read.
February 7, 2013
This book is like the anti- "Sex at Dawn".
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews