Humans are naturally monogamous.

Critically evaluate this statement using evidence from

sexual strategies theory and sexual dimorphism in humans.

Even after death humans attempt to keep a part of themselves alive through their genes, whilst both
males and females seek to reproduce, the strategies they adopt to achieve this are proven to be
different. For females having an offspring is a huge investment Schmitt, D. B. (1993)., This Is due to
them having to suffer through lengthy gestation periods and endure dangerous labour. Furthermore,
women only produce 1 egg per month whilst most males have a practically limitless amount of
sperm Fine, C. (2010). These dimorphic differences lead to a very different approach when
considering monogamous relationships. Women seek long term partners in men with high financial
prospects and education as these are the most reliable when it comes to constantly providing the
resources they need for survival. becoming successful take time which perhaps explains why women
prefer slightly older men, this phenomenon is not replicated in men which further supports this
theory (Buss, 1989)Evidence has shown that predictors of women mate preferences can change
depending on their own success, successful women tend to value resource gathering slightly less and
focus more on factors such as attractiveness, they also have more sexual partners, this further
illustrates that monogamy in women is due to necessity as a method of maintaining a long-term
partner and that human are naturally polygamous (Heil, J. (2021). These factors however are less
relevant to men who instead search for promiscuous females who they consider to be easily
accessible and readily available. The international Mate selection program showed these effects in
surveys which feature over 10000 participants from 37 countries. (Buss, 1989) Results showed that
men were indifferent to many traits women consider to be indispensable. Due to dimorphism males
are physically superior to their counterparts, this increased ability makes them more capable of
gathering resources required for protection of mother and her child. Perhaps a result of human’s
history as hunters, women look for physical characteristics which will benefit this cause when
choosing their mate. Multiple studies have shown this including surveys which show that attributes
such as height (Stulp, 2012)and masculinity are successful predictors of reproductive ability. It
should be noted however that instead of physical prowess, men can demonstrate their resource
gathering abilities using intelligence or ornamentation. Arguing that humans are naturally
monogamous is difficult when considering the rarity of this trait in the animal kingdom, scientists
estimate that less than 5 percent of animals are monogamous (Levine, 2017), perhaps human
monogamy is a direct result of social and cultural constraints. The Buss study showed that many
countries in the world are polygamous (Buss, 1989), and scientists argue that polygamy was only
implemented into society recently. To conclude I believe humans have developed a dual
reproduction model where both monogamous and adulterous lifestyles are acceptable. Women are
Cleary more wired to be monogamous than men, likely to be due to the difference in physical
strength, though both are equally as capable of having multiple sexual partners.

References
Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mates in 37 different cultures. behavioural and brain
sciences, 1-49.

Levine, J. (2017). 10 examples of monogamy in the animal kingdom. Cell mentor.

Stulp, G. (2012). A curvilinear effect of height on reproductive success in human males. Behavioural
ecology and sociobiology, 375-384.

Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: how our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New
York: WW Norton and company.
Humans are naturally monogamous. Critically evaluate this statement using evidence from
sexual strategies theory and sexual dimorphism in humans.

Heil, J. (2021). Appearance in reality. Durham.

Schmitt, D. B. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.

Psychological review, 204-232.