A contentious two-strategy model for male & female sexual behavior based on shaky science

The model

A good model is not an expression of perfect truth. Instead, it’s something that explains what we see, and lets us make good predictions. With that in mind, I’ll present a relatively simple model of explaining human sexual –impulses-. It is based on what I see, and what makes ‘sense’ in terms of ‘past humans who behaved this way would likely have had greater evolutionary success, so it is not surprising if many humans exhibit these behavioral impulses’.

A contentious two-strategy model for male & female sexual behavior based on shaky science

A roman razor found in England. Occam’s razor might have looked similar.

The model does not touch on morality or ethics, or most of our higher order reasoning. Those things matter. For some people they are the main drivers of their behavior. I’m not trying to explain everything about how people act; I’m trying to present a simple model of why they’d feel urges to act in certain ways. Our urges around sex are tied to reproductive success. The fact most people don’t want to have children outside of specific situations doesn’t change our impulses.

Each sex has two strategies. Some people likely have a higher urge for one than the other, but nothing (except ethics or society!) prevents individuals from pursuing both at the same time.

Male strategies

Play the field: Have sex with any available, fertile looking (i.e. reasonably attractive) female that he can. This –might- result in a pregnancy. If multiple women are available at any given point in time, prioritize the most healthy/fertile. Variety in partners is good: he can impregnate more than one woman at the same time. Since he could impregnate a different woman later in the day, the question his urges are asking is ‘is this the best partner I can get in the next few hours?’

Relationship: Bond with the best female available who is interested in a monogamous relationship with him (she’s monogamous to him at least). Shower her with resources if he can. Why is this strategy effective? Because she’s only sleeping with him, so any kids she has are probably his. And by providing resources to her, the odds of success for the children that are most likely to be his, are improved. Note that men would be choosier about this woman than the women they’d sleep with when playing the field. While playing the field can be used on a new woman every few hours, this is a long term investment. He’s now asking “is this the best partner I can get over the next year or more?” He might invest time in building this relationship on the understanding that sex will come later, but ultimately, it’s regular sex that makes the strategy worth pursuing (from a reproductive standpoint). Otherwise he’d end up raising someone else’s children.

Female strategies

Relationship: Find the best male who has a combination of strength (not just physical) and good fatherhood characteristics. If he will bond with her and commit to helping out as a father and providing for her, it’s appealing for her to sleep with him. Good genetics for the kids, and help to improve the odds they make it. Be relatively picky – she can only have one child every year or more, so this is a major potential investment. She’s looking for signs of his commitment to her before following through on this strategy.

NSA (No strings attached): Have sex with the most successful and probably most aggressive male around. He won’t be around to help her out, but he would produce the strongest (in all senses) children. Bonus points if lots of women want to sleep with him: hopefully he gives you a son who has similar traits, who would produce many, many grandchildren.

How the strategies play out

Men have an urge to sleep with virtually any decent looking woman who seems available. For some men this urge is stronger than others. This does not mean they are attached to her. Variety in itself is a plus. Standards for playing the field, even in terms of looks, are lower than for relationships. However they are not zero. Essentially, men have an urge to sleep with any woman who is as attractive as the level of woman he knows he can comfortably ‘get’. A guy who sleeps casually with models all the time is probably not very interested in sleeping with an average woman. An average looking guy will have much lower standards if he is pursuing playing the field.

A contentious two-strategy model for male & female sexual behavior based on shaky science

Tiger Woods is an excellent golfer. Where were we? Oh yes, men who pursue both strategies ... back to that.

Men may feel a desire to do both strategies simultaneously: this is why you’ll see men who are married to one woman, who are then cheating with many other women. Most often (not always) men report the women they cheat with are actually less attractive than their main partner. Men who cheat regularly cheat for variety and for more quantity of sex partners. They are quite possessive about their main partner’s sexual behavior: if they are not, they are investing in another man’s children. If the main partner stops sleeping with him, their feelings will fade – again, they’d be investing in another man’s children.

Men who are only pursing the relationship strategy will actually appear to be pickier about looks than men playing the field.

Women benefit very little, from an evolutionary standpoint, from having lots and lots of partners. They win by being selective. This doesn’t necessarily mean they only desire sex with a relationship. But their standards are different (and in terms of physical aspects, higher) for non-relationship sex. If the man is not going to stick around helping out as a father, the genes he’s providing better be excellent. Of course a woman regularly pursuing NSA may end up with a lot of partners, since she might (or might not) be with the same man each time. Women as well might pursue both strategies at the same time, by cheating on their main partner. Most women who cheat, report cheating with a man who is higher status than their regular partner. Not only has that, but women’s attraction to very high testosterone influenced facial features rising when they ovulate. They are probably more likely to feel the urge to cheat with a stronger, more aggressive male when they are ovulating.

Unless the male being pursued by a woman using the NSA strategy is literally dangerous to be around, or really abrasive, there’s a high chance she’d be tempted to pursue the relationship strategy with him. There’s no downside from an evolutionary standpoint, if she’s not in a relationship already. Put another way – women are more likely to want a relationship with a friends with benefits than vice versa, since the male more often sees her as meeting his ‘play the field’ standards but not his higher ‘relationship’ standards.

A contentious two-strategy model for male & female sexual behavior based on shaky science

What kind of man do women want NSA with only? Ones who project bad boy to the point being around longer than sex might feel dangerous.

It might be the neck tattoos.

So what does this mean?

It means these urges are present to varying degrees in most of us. Life experiences may nudge us more to one than another. Men who have given up on relationships will likely throw themselves into playing the field. Women who aren’t used to men actually sticking around are more likely to (quite reasonably) pursue the NSA strategy, which for women is actually a more successful mating strategy if men aren’t going to be around.

We might also note that traditional society essentially funneled all men and women into pursuing their respective relationship strategy, grooming both to meet what the other would look for in that situation. Men were encouraged to be decent, reliable, employed, steady men who could support a family – the sort of men appealing to monogamy focused women. And women were encouraged to be pretty and chaste – instinctively appealing wives for men who were looking for commitment where paternity is unquestioned. As society is changing, more people are pursuing other strategies. More men find they don’t meet the standards of women’s NSA strategy, and women are unsure as to the intentions of the men they interact with.

Final thought

I don’t consider any of this depressing. Impulses to cheat are not cheating. We are more than our urges. Understanding them – and how our partner’s urges may be different from our own – is a step to better understanding and increased likelihood of mutually satisfying relationships.

2 1

Most Helpful Girl

  • I'm not really sure what you're saying about women being programmed to want friends with benefits type relationships?
    First of all "There’s no downside from an evolutionary standpoint, if she’s not in a relationship already" Not true. There is a downside. A big one on that. Statistically speaking very attractive high testosterone men make bad fathers. They are less involved in rearing children and they're more likely to cheat/ father other children that they need to spend resources on. A guy who has to share resources between a lot of children isn't a desirable partner either. What makes men want to play the field that they don't have to be responsible for children they father. Worked pretty well so far but in the modern world say hello to DNA tests and child support.

    "women are more likely to want a relationship with a friends with benefits than vice versa" that part I don't really get? What's the vice versa? No strings attached?

    "What kind of man do women want NSA with only? Ones who project bad boy to the point being around longer than sex might feel dangerous. " So very very very untrue

    • Interested in your last point, because that's almost exactly the first point. The 'high testosterone men'. I should perhaps be clearer, there's a downside if she has an opportunity to get a good relationship, but if she's going to be single for the next two years, from an evolutionary standpoint, might as well have healthy strong child from some high-test guy who vanishes. My impression is a fair number of women have almost no interest in the NSA strategy, but clearly some do, or groupies wouldn't exist. The vice versa was that the average male in a friends with benefits situation does not want to shift it to being a relationship. If he did, he would have done so much earlier.

    • No you don't understand. There is a downside even if he is willing to be in a relationship, because statistically high testosterone men make worse long term partners than other men. That's a downside. You clearly stated that the quality of a long term partner matters. And it's not just humans. For monogamous birds where the male is precieved as attractive he doesn't work as hard and isn't as involved in his children's life How is that the same thing as my last point?

    • I'm actually agreeing with you. Those super high test men are the exact category I said were most likely to be tempting ONLY for NSA category - because they're not good long term partners. I'm agreeing I overstated with 'there's no downside' .. . there are quite a few potential downsides. and risks. But I can't edit the take -_-

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guy

  • Great take, very clear and too the point. Now you won't have to write the same stuff over and over on every question.

    Everything makes sense except for
    "I don’t consider any of this depressing."

    I find it to be at least mildly depressin :/

    • None of this changes how often people out there cheat, or how many players there are, or any of that. Things are as they were yesterday! Understanding why just means its easier to build strategies - alone and as a couple - to use your natural instincts to fuel your relationship, not undermine it. We all have these powerful levers inside us driving desires, and the more we can be throwing our partners levers so they just flat out - want - us and vice versa, the better. In that case, our instincts become glue that really helps the relationship.

    • True, things are the same as they always have been but that doesn't mean it's not somewhat depressing to see things as they really are.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

5 5
  • Man, you got some amazing skills :)

  • It most definitely is because of the neck tattoos :p

    Another extremely well-thought out post. You need to write a book about this. I would totally buy it. The final thought section was encouraging- I was close to denouncing men forevermore up til that part :p

    What I'm noticing on this site is... relationship-type males going for NSA-type women and then being completely hurt when the NSA-type woman goes for incarcerated-neck-tattoo-man instead.

    • I'd maybe simplify it to males trying to get relationships with girls who are interested in relationships in theory, but keep getting into NSA relationships with more desirable guys. This situation is benefiting some guys a lot, hurting some guys quite a bit, and having mixed impact's on women (better partner, no commitment). The societal impact of all this is interesting. As individuals though, if you're a guy? brush up your attractiveness as a short term partner, then be -willing- to commit if it's what you want. Girls probably need to do almost the opposite, more ruthlessly filtering out guys who either A: aren't pursuing relationships or B: aren't interested in a relationship -with them-.

    • Yes! @Take Owner you should absolutely write a book/more articles!

  • Now days variety seems to be the main reason for both genders.

  • The best Take i have read here!
    thanks for the insight and ideas very helpful

  • So I guess the point you're making is to try to embody them both?

    • As a guy, I think sort of. It's not like 100 years ago where people just courted 18 year old women and either married them immediately, or not. People enter into relationships with an ambiguous future, and that means if you are only appealing as mr. steady without any of the charming short term guy's characteristics, you'll likely have problems. On the other hand, if you can really embody both, you make it easy for her to be really happy. I think people focus on 'men are dogs' or 'women are hypergamous!' sometimes, because they sort of come as shocks to people raised anticipating monogamy. But there ARE also strong evolutionary pushes to form relationships fuelled by love. So make sure you're both pushing those buttons.

  • @__________@ oh man, 2 much thinking

  • Lol at the Women NSA. Nice take

  • Well I had to call a suicide hotline after reading this...

  • Your theory of female strategy implicitly proposes females have a limited access to and control over resources. If a woman can provide for her own baby, or do so with the aid of family or other females or otherwise supportive community, then males with resources would have no sexual leverage whatsoever.

    Also your theory implies females judge the reproductive value of males' DNA based on his testostetone levels, but testosterone levels provide virtually no insight on gene strength whatsoever.

    In nature, generally females choose males, at their own discretion, and the males who go unchosen don't get to reproduce or must resort to rape in order to attempt reproduction. In this way, females are built by nature to 'guide' evolution, while males are built by nature to 'provide' the genetic material with which to do so.

    Male humans are constantly trying to set up, and historically frequently succeeded in setting up a "rigged" system. (Religious texts which worked to shape female desire, and guided men in how to maintain leverage over female sexual agency - which is a system nothing short of brilliant, if tragically short-sighted)

    You should factor that into your hypothesis. Female humans behave differently in a male dominated society than they would in a natural setting. Not knocking it, just saying that's how it is.

  • The bad boy thing is overstated - it's not the only reason for NSA sex. Probably not even the most common. Sexual attraction without attachment also occurs if she doesn't find the guy enjoyable to be around (a necessary evil of pair bond relationships) due to some mismatch of intelligence, lifestyle or values. (Ex: a chick may sleep with a hot guy she thinks is kind of dumb or a hot guy she is bored by).

    • I actually absolutely agree. but the take was getting pretty long :D I picked bad boy because it was a common one. It's not that I actually wanted to highlight 'women love badboys!'. In fact I'd say they sort of don't prefer badboys. Any badboy who toned down the 'bad' aspects while keeping his strength would likely be -more- not less popular. But guys who are drug dealers or get in fights all the time are more likely to fall in that small category of guys who get sex more easily than relationships. It could be that he's just... dumb, or has 'different values' though these two groups likely need to be -really- good looking to run into this. Rather then bad boy, it might be more accurate to say 'strong guys who are assholes' are somewhat likely here. Super high testosterone guys. Good hookup partner, but not a good relationship partner.

    • He doesn't even need to be an asshole or hyper masculine, is what I'm saying. That seems to be perpetuated by people with little real life experience and a heavy dose of psuedo science Internet research.

    • I agree he doesn't have to be. We disagree I suspect on how common it's a good looking but boring guy, versus an aggressive, moderately good looking jerk. But I don't think that's a critical distinction. In real life, I've never actually known -any- guy who could get laid, but not get girlfriends. But I know they're out there, apparently.

    • Show All