David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):624-636 (2000)
This response reinforces several major themes in our target article: (a) the importance of sex-specific, within-sex variation in mating tactics; (b) the relevance of optimality thinking to understanding that variation; (c) the significance of special design for reconstructing evolutionary history; (d) the replicated findings that women's mating preferences vary across their menstrual cycle in ways revealing special design; and (e) the importance of applying market phenomena to understand the complex dynamics of mating. We also elaborate on three points: (1) Men who have indicators of genetic fitness may provide more direct benefits when female demand for extra-pair and short-term sex is very low; (2) both men and women track ecological cues to make mating decisions; and (3) more research on female orgasm is needed.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David P. Schmitt (2005). Sociosexuality From Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-Nation Study of Sex, Culture, and Strategies of Human Mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):247-275.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Craig T. Palmer & Hasker P. Davis (2000). More Women (and Men) That Never Evolved. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):598-599.
Martin L. Lalumière & Vernon L. Quinsey (2000). Good Genes, Mating Effort, and Delinquency. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):608-609.
Jeffry A. Simpson (1999). The Dual Selection Model: Questions About Necessity and Completeness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):235-235.
Stephen Beckerman (2000). Mating and Marriage, Husbands and Lovers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):590-591.
Elizabeth M. Hill (2000). Conditional Mating Strategies Are Contingent on Return From Investment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):605-606.
David M. Buss (2005). Sex Differences in the Design Features of Socially Contingent Mating Adaptations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):278-279.
April L. Bleske & David M. Buss (2000). A Comprehensive Theory of Human Mating Must Explain Between-Sex and Within-Sex Differences in Mating Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):593-594.
Steven W. Gangestad & Jeffry A. Simpson (2000). The Evolution of Human Mating: Trade-Offs and Strategic Pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):573-587.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #300,366 of 1,792,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,566 of 1,792,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?