There are universal truths when it comes to mate choice and pair bonding which, for those in the know, can have practical implications in the mating game. Because men and women have faced differing evolutionary challenges related to reproduction, it is not surprising that they have developed gender-specific strategies to cope with them. To understand the underlying mechanisms of this most primeval of human behaviours one has to understand evolution.
Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest or about eat-or-be-eaten strategies. Evolution does not care about the happiness of an individual or a whole species and is indifferent to who lives or dies. Evolution’s prime objective is simply the perpetual transition of genes from one generation to the next, and it uses our bodies as vehicles to do so. Evolution does care, however, about individuals surviving long enough to reproduce at least once so that its prime objective is fulfilled, but evolution has no vested interest in prolonging life once this threshold has been met.
To this end our genetic inheritance has sculpted neural networks that produce unconscious drives to guide our behaviour without our knowing why. One of those key behaviours that determine so much in our lives, even if we don’t have kids, is parental investment. While for a woman conception is a significant investment in time, energy, risk and lost mating opportunities, all it takes for a man is a couple of minutes of time. And while men have a virtually inexhaustible number of sperm cells at their disposal, women’s eggs are finite as they are not being replenished. Much of our behaviour is influenced by these simple facts, including behaviour outside of the context of reproduction.
A further limiting factor for women’s reproductive potential is that they are restricted in their reproductive years by the onset of menopause, whereas men are able to reproduce until old age. This means that even in the best of circumstances women can produce only a limited number of offspring in their lifetime, no matter how many partners they choose. For men the only limiting factor is access to fertile women.
A woman’s single act of passion can lead to an obligatory investment of at least nine months. Often this period extends to more than a decade, which is why thoroughly vetting the suitor is of critical importance. In economic terms this means that women hold a valuable resource, which they tend to exchange only for a very high price in reproductive currency. The currency in which men pay this price is protection, resources, commitment and good genes.
In other words, it is in women’s biological interest to be selective in their mate choice. They look for men who are somewhat taller and older than they are, men who show signs of status and resources and who are willing to share these resources from an early stage in courtship. Women look especially for signs of commitment, and the ritual of a prolonged courtship serves to separate those looking for a one-night stand from the serious contenders. Both genders place equal value on love, intelligence and health, but women place a premium on financial prospects over beauty when looking for a long-term partner.
For men the situation is largely reversed; for them the premium is not on status but on beauty. A young woman driving a Volkswagen Beetle and wearing a second-hand dress is rated by men as less attractive than a woman wearing Prada in a Porsche.
The challenge for men has always been twofold. First, they had to secure access to fertile and healthy women, and then they had to ensure not investing their resources in other men’s genes by being cuckolded. This is the reason why men often react much stronger to sexual infidelity than women. Men’s genes are more threatened by their wives’ infidelity than women’s genes are by cheating men.
But which signs could men rely on to indicate a woman’s reproductive potential? In contrast to other primates, human females display no external signs of ovulation because human ovulation is largely concealed. Men therefore have developed a strong bias toward youth, facial and bodily symmetry, waist-to-hip ratio, full hair and lips, clear skin and pleasant smell not because of beauty per se but because all these features indicate to men one thing: fertility.
There has always been interplay between short-term and long-term mating strategies. While there are many benefits in long-term pair bonding for parents and their offspring, both genders occasionally look beyond their current relationship. That this behaviour too is imprinted in our neural networks and has its roots in ancestral times is underlined by the fact that women’s preferences in mate choice change depending on their ovulatory cycle.
Near ovulation, women prefer men displaying indicators of good genes, especially if their primary partners lack these traits. Deep voices, square jaws, athletic body structure and dominant behaviour indicate high testosterone levels in men. Women near peak fertility report greater attraction to these men. In short, women prefer heroes at peak fertility and committed fathers when the hormones are less active.
As we have seen, both sexes have developed fine-tuned mating strategies and gender-specific preferences to ensure the best possible combination of good genes and survival chances for their children. Women benefit more from a reliable long-term mate than men because women’s investment in their offspring is higher and the limited number of children they can produce in a lifetime cannot be increased by increasing the number of mates. For men the situation is much different. The most effective way to ensure the survival of a man’s genes is to mate with as many women as possible with as little parental investment as they can get away with.
So it seems that men give love to get sex and women give sex to get love, but what is often overlooked is the fact that emotions and cues related to mating influence most areas of our lives no matter the circumstances or how old we are. This is not to say that evolutionary behaviour patterns excuse bad conduct of individuals; it only means that we all have these predispositions.
But if we become aware of these ancient forces we can mitigate their power and use them to our advantage, even if that means to venture into largely uncharted territories. To deny that evolution has shaped the way we think and behave today, that our modern skulls house ancient minds, is to reject who we really are and the potential we all hold.
