Regnerus focuses a lot on the ability of men to view the mating market as bifurcated, seeing a clear distinction between acting with sex in mind and acting with marriage (commitment, reproduction, male paternal investment) in mind. Their ability to do that can be theorized to be an outgrowth of men’s most lucrative evolutionary mating strategy in the evolutionary environment.
The theory goes that men will experience the highest evolutionary rates of return if they keep in mind the high rates of paternal investment necessary to rear successful offspring. Part of the male reproductive strategy is to find a highly desirable female who is extremely evolutionarily fit, reproduce with her, and invest his paternal resources there. However, any children he has with other women still have a chance of survival without his resources, and thus the other part of the strategy is to have ‘quick flings’ to produce offspring with other women in the hopes that they will reach adulthood and be successful without him. It is likely that at least some will make it adulthood.
Evident in this pattern is a clear distinction between sex and marriage when it comes to evolutionary goals. This concept is commonly thought of in politically incorrect terms as the “Madonna-whore dichotomy,” where men view women as candidates for either “cheap sex” to use Regnerus’ words or for commitment and sacrifice. The advent of birth control has not changed this dynamic, rather, it has simply allowed it to run amok but with far less reproductive consequences.
2 replies on “Why can men separate the sex/marriage market – Evolution 3”
Oliver,
I think it is very interesting that you brought up the Madonna-Whore dichotomy. Something about this I am interested in is that, inside this dichotomy, it is evolutionary advantageous for a woman to act as a Madonna. I know there are millions of possible factors involved, but does the author of the “Moral Animal” have any thoughts as to a primary motivation for why many women to not assume the Madonna role? Or do you have any theories? Also, in this model, and especially in the past, there is no real reason a man shouldn’t cheat on his wife, or act like a male version of a “madonna”. Why wouldn’t every guy just spend their lives looking for “whores”? There is an evolutionary motivation for women to act basically good, but what is the evolutionary reason for men to act good? There are some men, like Carlos from Cheap Sex, who probably do not feel the pressure to be good, but there also are men who do act somewhat like male madonnas, even if they don’t have to. If you have any thoughts, theories, or more information from the book, I’d love to hear it.
The author of “the Moral Animal” lays out three evolutionary for mating outside fo a monogamous relationship for women. The first is that, simply, sex can be traded for resources that a woman can use to support her offspring. The second is that, if a woman has multiple men thinking that her offspring are theirs, they will likely get more resources and thus be better off. The third reason is if there is an evolutionary situation that could give a woman ‘the best of both worlds’. If there is one mate who is extremely evolutionarily fit and another who is not as fit but is really good at delivering male paternal investment, the woman can mate with the fit one and then act like her offspring are of the one who is good at providing male paternal investment, thus getting the best of both.