Abstract

Previous work shows that males are more likely to pursue casual sex if given the opportunity, compared to females, on average. One component of this strategy is risk-taking, and males have been shown to take more risks than females in a variety of contexts. Here, we investigate the extent to which sex differences exist considering casual sexual encounters involving sexually transmitted infections (STIs) using a hypothetical sexual scenario which attempts to circumvent several factors that may contribute to a female’s hesitancy to engage in casual sex encounters. Two hundred and forty-six college students rated their willingness to engage in a satisfying casual sexual encounter with someone judged to be personable as a function of sex, varying STI contraction likelihoods, several STI types, and two levels of hypothetical partner attractiveness. We also assess how individual levels of sociosexuality (as measured by the SOI-R) impact findings. Our findings show that males report higher likelihoods of sexual engagement compared to females in general. This trend continued for lower likelihoods of STI contraction in all four STI types (Cold, Chlamydia, Herpes, HIV), with larger effects shown in the high attractiveness partner condition. For higher STI contraction likelihoods and more severe STI types, along with lower partner attractiveness levels, sex differences shrank. Factoring in participant SOI-R scores attenuated the effects somewhat, although it failed to alter findings substantially with predicted sex differences continuing to exist. These results offer further insight into evolved sex differences in human mating systems and provide an additional framework to test sexual risk-taking among males and females.

Highlights

  • Over the last 50 years, scientists interested in the evolutionary underpinnings of sex differences in mating strategies have utilized Triver’s (1972) theory of parental investment, which states that the sex that invests more in offspring will be more selective when it comes to choosing a mate, with the sex investing less competing for access to mates

  • The present study investigated how male and female attitudes toward casual sexual encounters would change considering previously unexplored sexual risk-taking scenarios; sexually transmitted infections (STIs) contraction likelihoods and different STI types

  • The 4-way interaction of Sex, STI Contraction Likelihood, STI Type, and Attractiveness Level on Sexual Engagement Likelihoods did result in a nonsignificant outcome, it only decreased the percentage of variance explained in the model by 3% from the original analysis. These results indicate that the sociosexuality of participants plays a role in attitudes toward casual sex, it did not negate the sex differences in attitudes toward casual sex that were originally found

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Over the last 50 years, scientists interested in the evolutionary underpinnings of sex differences in mating strategies have utilized Triver’s (1972) theory of parental investment, which states that the sex that invests more in offspring (physiologically and/or behaviorally) will be more selective when it comes to choosing a mate, with the sex investing less competing for access to mates. In. Sex Differences in Risky Casual Sex. 1979, Donald Symons further explicated theoretical reasoning for males being more likely to pursue sexual variety under an evolutionary framework. 1979, Donald Symons further explicated theoretical reasoning for males being more likely to pursue sexual variety under an evolutionary framework Among humans, both males and females pursue long- and short-term mating scenarios under different ecological conditions (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000; Buss, 2006; Buss and Schmitt, 2019), divergent investment strategies between males and females exist. Along with male’s preference for sexual variety, mate quality characteristics such as personality attributes (Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Surbey and Conohan, 2000) are judged to be not as important for males in short-term mating encounters, compared to females, males continue to consider attractiveness in these decisions (Surbey and Conohan, 2000; Todd et al, 2007; Schützwohl et al, 2009)

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call