At the end of my post on Conley's research, I promised a more critical follow-up that describes some mistakes in her published article. Her article contains two basic types of mistakes. First, she mischaracterizes what evolutionary psychologists say about human mating. Second, she misinterprets the results of her own research. What I would like to do in this blog post is to first correct Conley's mischaracterization of evolutionary psychology. Then, I'll argue that Conley's research findings actually support, rather than disprove, the evolutionary psychology of mating.

There are a number of theories of human mating in evolutionary psychology; Conley focuses on the Sexual Strategies Theory (SST) proposed by David Buss and David Schmitt. Conley believes that SST and her own preferred theory, Pleasure Theory, make contradictory claims about what motivates women and men to engage in sex. Pleasure Theory says we are all motivated by a desire for pleasure; if we think that engaging in sex will feel good, then we will engage in sex. According to Conley, SST says that women are motivated to engage in sex because of a desire for "protection and other status-related resources and . . . good genetic material, which will be passed on to the women's children. Men's desire for women stems from men's desire (a) to spread their sperm indiscriminately and (b) to spread their sperm to women who are likely to bear children."   .  .  . "a woman would be more likely to accept [an offer for casual sex] to the extent that the male proposer is high status (so that the proposer can support her and her children). A man would be more likely to accept [an offer for casual sex] to the extent that the female proposer would be faithful to him, so that the paternity of his children can be assured" (p. 3).

Does SST really say that, when it comes to sex, men and women are not motivated by a desire for pleasure? Does SST really say that a woman's desire for resources and good genes and a man's desire to spread his sperm indiscriminately and to fertile, faithful women determine whether they will engage in casual sex? No, no, and no.

Rob Kurzban has already explained in some detail what evolutionary psychologists say about the motivating power of pleasure, so I'll provide just a short explanation here. Evolutionary psychologists, going all the way back to Darwin himself, have always considered both positive emotions (like pleasure) and negative emotions (anger, fear, sadness) to be evolved programs that support survival and reproduction. There is no contradiction between wanting pleasure and wanting to survive and reproduce. In fact, we derive pleasure precisely from activities that led to our ancestors' survival and reproduction. And because our female and male ancestors had to behave in somewhat different ways to survive and reproduce, women and men today have inherited from them different emotional tendencies regarding sex. Conley herself notes one difference: a sense of safety and familiarity are far more important factors in a woman's decision to have sex than a man's.

What about SST's alleged position that women desire resources and good genes from a partner while men desire to spread their sperm indiscriminately (but preferably with fertile, faithful women)? Conley claims that her data disprove SST's account of female and male desire because her female participants rejected the thought of casual sex with the wealthy Donald Trump while men were just as sexually interested in menopausal Christie Brinkley as the more fertile Angelina Jolie. Has a fundamental cornerstone of Sexual Strategies Theory been shattered?

No, because Conley's description of what SST says about sexual desire does not correspond to what the authors of SST themselves say about sexual desire. First of all, Buss and Schmitt are careful to point out that the strategic pursuit of goals such as resources or fertile incubators are not necessarily conscious: "When we speak of preferences as solutions to reproductive problems, there is no implication that these preferences, or the reproductive problems they solve, are consciously articulated, although the preferences themselves may be accessible to awareness. Instead, they operate as desires, attractions, and gut-level emotions that characteristically impel a person toward some mates and repel a person from others" (p. 209). For example, many women are likely to be attracted to Brad Pitt (as Conley's research participants were) without realizing that Pitt's facial symmetry indicates good genetic quality. And many men are likely to be attracted to Christie Brinkley (as Conley's research participants were) without realizing that Brinkley's waist-to-hip ratio of .69 signals health and fertility.

But wouldn't SST predict that the women in Conley's study be more interested in casual sex with The Donald (net worth, $2.7 billion) than with Brad Pitt (net worth only $150 million)? Well, let's keep in mind that we are talking about casual sex--a one-night stand--not a long-term relationship, and SST clearly states that women (and men) have different criteria for short-term and long-term mating relationships. For a short-term mating, according to Buss and Schmitt, "women will especially value signs that a man will immediately expend resources on her" (p. 221). In the scenarios written by Conley, the male proposers did not even offer dinner-just sex. Perhaps Conley's research participants would have responded differently if Donald Trump had offered more than sex. After all, in real life, women have been willing to sleep with him. In another article, Desires in Mating, Buss outlines a number of additional evolutionarily-relevant motives for women to engage in short-term mating, including obtaining good genes for her child. Who looks like he has better genes, Brad Pitt or Donald Trump?