Pub Date : 2024-09-13DOI: 10.1007/s12110-024-09478-2
Sierra D. Peters, Jon K. Maner, Andrea L. Meltzer
One longitudinal study of married couples and one experiment tested the hypothesis that the experience of sexual desire for an alternative sexual partner might heighten feelings of desire for one’s long-term romantic partner, and conversely, sexual desire for one’s long-term partner might heighten desire for alternative partners. A daily-diary study of newlywed couples revealed that (a) on days people reported heightened interest in alternative partners, they also reported increased desire to have sex with their partner and (b) on days people reported heightened desire to have sex with their partner, they also reported increased interest in alternative partners. An experimental study of partnered individuals revealed that people primed with sexual desire for an alternative partner reported increased sexual desire for their romantic partner (relative to a control condition). People primed with sexual desire for their romantic partner, however, did not report increased sexual desire for alternatives. Taken together, these findings support evolutionary perspectives on the function of sexual desire. Findings are consistent with the broader hypothesis that sexual desire is not partner-specific.
{"title":"Sexual Desire is not Partner-Specific","authors":"Sierra D. Peters, Jon K. Maner, Andrea L. Meltzer","doi":"10.1007/s12110-024-09478-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-024-09478-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p>One longitudinal study of married couples and one experiment tested the hypothesis that the experience of sexual desire for an alternative sexual partner might heighten feelings of desire for one’s long-term romantic partner, and conversely, sexual desire for one’s long-term partner might heighten desire for alternative partners. A daily-diary study of newlywed couples revealed that (a) on days people reported heightened interest in alternative partners, they also reported increased desire to have sex with their partner and (b) on days people reported heightened desire to have sex with their partner, they also reported increased interest in alternative partners. An experimental study of partnered individuals revealed that people primed with sexual desire for an alternative partner reported increased sexual desire for their romantic partner (relative to a control condition). People primed with sexual desire for their romantic partner, however, did not report increased sexual desire for alternatives. Taken together, these findings support evolutionary perspectives on the function of sexual desire. Findings are consistent with the broader hypothesis that sexual desire is not partner-specific.</p>","PeriodicalId":501546,"journal":{"name":"Human Nature","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142205714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-28DOI: 10.1007/s12110-022-09426-y
Gabriel Šaffa, Pavel Duda, Jan Zrzavý
Although norms of premarital sex vary cross-culturally, the sexuality of adolescent girls has been consistently more restricted than that of adolescent boys. Three major theories that attempt to explain restrictions on female premarital sex (FPS) concern male, female, and parental control. These competing theories have not been tested against each other cross-culturally. In this study, we do this using a sample of 128 nonindustrial societies and socioecological predictors capturing extramarital sex, paternal care, female status, sex ratio, parental control over a daughter’s mate choice, residence, and marriage transactions, while also controlling for phylogenetic non-independence across societies. We found that multiple parties benefit from restrictions on FPS. Specifically, FPS is more restricted in societies intolerant of extramarital sex and where men transfer property to their children (male control), as well as where marriages are arranged by parents (parental control). Both paternity uncertainty (partitioned among marital fidelity and paternal investment) and parent–offspring conflict (prompting parents to control their daughter’s sexuality) were identified as possible mechanisms of FPS restrictions. The evidence for female control is ambiguous, mainly because it can be equally well interpreted as both male control and parental control, and because fathers, rather than mothers, are often the primary decision makers about a daughter’s mate choice. Our results also emphasize the importance of social roles, rather than stereotyped sex roles, as a more useful approach to understanding the evolution of FPS restrictions.
{"title":"Paternity Uncertainty and Parent–Offspring Conflict Explain Restrictions on Female Premarital Sex across Societies","authors":"Gabriel Šaffa, Pavel Duda, Jan Zrzavý","doi":"10.1007/s12110-022-09426-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-022-09426-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although norms of premarital sex vary cross-culturally, the sexuality of adolescent girls has been consistently more restricted than that of adolescent boys. Three major theories that attempt to explain restrictions on female premarital sex (FPS) concern male, female, and parental control. These competing theories have not been tested against each other cross-culturally. In this study, we do this using a sample of 128 nonindustrial societies and socioecological predictors capturing extramarital sex, paternal care, female status, sex ratio, parental control over a daughter’s mate choice, residence, and marriage transactions, while also controlling for phylogenetic non-independence across societies. We found that multiple parties benefit from restrictions on FPS. Specifically, FPS is more restricted in societies intolerant of extramarital sex and where men transfer property to their children (male control), as well as where marriages are arranged by parents (parental control). Both paternity uncertainty (partitioned among marital fidelity and paternal investment) and parent–offspring conflict (prompting parents to control their daughter’s sexuality) were identified as possible mechanisms of FPS restrictions. The evidence for female control is ambiguous, mainly because it can be equally well interpreted as both male control and parental control, and because fathers, rather than mothers, are often the primary decision makers about a daughter’s mate choice. Our results also emphasize the importance of social roles, rather than stereotyped sex roles, as a more useful approach to understanding the evolution of FPS restrictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":501546,"journal":{"name":"Human Nature","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138544441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-28DOI: 10.1007/s12110-022-09426-y
Gabriel Šaffa,Pavel Duda,Jan Zrzavý
Although norms of premarital sex vary cross-culturally, the sexuality of adolescent girls has been consistently more restricted than that of adolescent boys. Three major theories that attempt to explain restrictions on female premarital sex (FPS) concern male, female, and parental control. These competing theories have not been tested against each other cross-culturally. In this study, we do this using a sample of 128 nonindustrial societies and socioecological predictors capturing extramarital sex, paternal care, female status, sex ratio, parental control over a daughter's mate choice, residence, and marriage transactions, while also controlling for phylogenetic non-independence across societies. We found that multiple parties benefit from restrictions on FPS. Specifically, FPS is more restricted in societies intolerant of extramarital sex and where men transfer property to their children (male control), as well as where marriages are arranged by parents (parental control). Both paternity uncertainty (partitioned among marital fidelity and paternal investment) and parent-offspring conflict (prompting parents to control their daughter's sexuality) were identified as possible mechanisms of FPS restrictions. The evidence for female control is ambiguous, mainly because it can be equally well interpreted as both male control and parental control, and because fathers, rather than mothers, are often the primary decision makers about a daughter's mate choice. Our results also emphasize the importance of social roles, rather than stereotyped sex roles, as a more useful approach to understanding the evolution of FPS restrictions.
{"title":"Paternity Uncertainty and Parent-Offspring Conflict Explain Restrictions on Female Premarital Sex across Societies.","authors":"Gabriel Šaffa,Pavel Duda,Jan Zrzavý","doi":"10.1007/s12110-022-09426-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-022-09426-y","url":null,"abstract":"Although norms of premarital sex vary cross-culturally, the sexuality of adolescent girls has been consistently more restricted than that of adolescent boys. Three major theories that attempt to explain restrictions on female premarital sex (FPS) concern male, female, and parental control. These competing theories have not been tested against each other cross-culturally. In this study, we do this using a sample of 128 nonindustrial societies and socioecological predictors capturing extramarital sex, paternal care, female status, sex ratio, parental control over a daughter's mate choice, residence, and marriage transactions, while also controlling for phylogenetic non-independence across societies. We found that multiple parties benefit from restrictions on FPS. Specifically, FPS is more restricted in societies intolerant of extramarital sex and where men transfer property to their children (male control), as well as where marriages are arranged by parents (parental control). Both paternity uncertainty (partitioned among marital fidelity and paternal investment) and parent-offspring conflict (prompting parents to control their daughter's sexuality) were identified as possible mechanisms of FPS restrictions. The evidence for female control is ambiguous, mainly because it can be equally well interpreted as both male control and parental control, and because fathers, rather than mothers, are often the primary decision makers about a daughter's mate choice. Our results also emphasize the importance of social roles, rather than stereotyped sex roles, as a more useful approach to understanding the evolution of FPS restrictions.","PeriodicalId":501546,"journal":{"name":"Human Nature","volume":"237 1","pages":"215-235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138544442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号